We performed a comparison between AWS CodeCommit and GitHub based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Version Control solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."AWS CodeCommit is simple and cheap."
"AWS CodeCommit is much easier to use than Bitbucket. It doesn't require any personal password or these things. We just need to put in our AWS account password and username."
"The product has a very user-friendly interface and user-friendly security."
"I did not have any issues with the stability of Github. It worked seamlessly."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"GitHub is convenient and easy to use."
"GitHub is the best tool for source repositories."
"The solution is scalable."
"I have found GitHub stable."
"This product allows us to easily collaborate on development tasks with our subcontractors, and control the workflow as the project progresses."
"There are some options in Bitbucket that are not available in AWS CodeCommit. For example, code reviewer. We can't add a code reviewer in AWS CodeCommit, and we can't fork the repository online. These are the two things that Bitbucket has, but the solution doesn't have. Also, Jira has a debugging option that AWS CodeCommit doesn't have. Another thing is that Bitbucket charges three dollars per month per user. Compared with AWS CodeCommit, that only charges one dollar per month. So, AWS CodeCommit is cheaper than Bitbucket. But it does not have enough features that Bitbucket has. Additionally, it will be good if you upload one video or documentation on how to use AWS CodeCommit for beginners. That will be more helpful. There you can add more details about pricing. There are not many details about pricing. Bitbucket has a table where they have mentioned everything in detail, like, what features for how much price, how much longer you can use and how many users can use."
"The tool should improve its UI."
"There is room for improvement in terms of interface."
"If something has to be moved into approvals, and if they don't approve it in a few hours, then they should move the approval request to some other user, or they should have a way to escalate it."
"There can be conflict issues when two developers work on the same file or line of code, and it would be great to see that improved, possibly with an AI solution."
"The initial setup requires heavy documentation which can be challenging for new developers."
"The security point should be addressed in the next release and scaling is also an issue."
"The initial setup and implementation could be easier, I had some difficulties with it at first but I don't have a development background."
"The solution should have less integration with the AI part, but it needs to add features with other automation tools so that it can be easily integrated."
"From the recruiting standpoint, I would like to see email IDs and phone numbers and a brief introduction about their profile."
AWS CodeCommit is ranked 5th in Version Control with 2 reviews while GitHub is ranked 3rd in Version Control with 64 reviews. AWS CodeCommit is rated 7.6, while GitHub is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of AWS CodeCommit writes "Offers convenient and cost-effective version control but lacks some advanced features and integration options ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub writes "Beneficial version control and continuous integration, but guides would be helpful". AWS CodeCommit is most compared with Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and Bitbucket Server, whereas GitHub is most compared with Snyk, Atlassian SourceTree, Bitbucket, Fortify on Demand and Checkmarx One. See our AWS CodeCommit vs. GitHub report.
See our list of best Version Control vendors.
We monitor all Version Control reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
