We performed a comparison between Bitbucket Server 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."I believe it's user-friendly for our developers, and it's effective in terms of traceability for tracking our actions."
"Bitbucket Server is easy to use. You can use other applications to access it, or you can use it to access the internet. You can use solutions, such as Sourcetree, which is free, and put it on your development system and use it to do the check-in, checkouts, and those type of operations. It is nice, but some other developers may agree."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"Bitbucket Server supports code collaboration by providing commands developers can use to check in code. Through comments, developers can specify the purpose of the code check-in. Additionally, Bitbucket allows tagging of code for releases."
"Its standout features are the seamless integration with various intelligent tools and its user-friendly nature."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is server management."
"It is an amazingly stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of the Bitbucket Server is its ease of management. The solution is easy to manage once we migrate and set up the data. The solution offers a fast code push feature."
"I would rate the stability a ten out of ten."
"I did not have any issues with the stability of Github. It worked seamlessly."
"The most valuable feature is help offered by the community for open-source projects."
"This solution is just easy to use."
"Our code is secure."
"All the features are valuable, but the most important feature is that GitHub has advanced security. The second important feature is the capability to create custom GitHub actions and the capability to deploy in different types of architectural infrastructures, such as hybrid, private, or public."
"GitHub's source code management is top-notch. It's easy to inspect changes and visualize code and differences. Their action system is comprehensive in terms of making changes and automation."
"A great feature is being able to have different repositories and different kinds of projects in a single solution at a single time. It's just a click away."
"Enhancing the real-time reflection of changes online is an area that could benefit from improvement."
"The product interface consists of multiple features that are complicated to navigate for new users."
"Bitbucket Server has limited user support for its free version. It is expensive."
"At the moment, there are not many details on how to proceed with the troubleshooting if one of the users faces an issue with the product."
"The tasks on Bitbucket must be automatically integrated into Jira."
"The product requires patching and version improvements. Some functions do not work properly when we move from one version to another. We need a technical improvement. Also, communicating with other Atlassian products becomes cumbersome when we move from one version to another. I want Bitbucket Server to include a dashboard similar to Jira's. Atlassian must also develop a tool to scan our complete base for vulnerabilities."
"It would have been better to use Bitbucket Server if it had something similar to the concept called GitHub Actions since it allows GitHub to provide seamless integration of CI/CD pipelines."
"We opted for the on-premises solution, and while it's quite expensive, I believe there's room for improvement in terms of pricing."
"Scalability is an area with a shortcoming, because of which it has room for improvement."
"From the recruiting standpoint, I would like to see email IDs and phone numbers and a brief introduction about their profile."
"There is a bit of a learning curve."
"GitHub should provide more integration in their next release, including integrating with Jenkins, CI/CD and Jira."
"They're improving the work items to track the progress of the team, but in my experience, Azure DevOps is better in this functionality. GitHub needs to improve the form to track the progress of the work done by a team."
"GitHub could expand the limits of the free version."
"I would like to see integration with Slack such that all of the changes made in GitHub are reflected there."
"If it had all of the end-to-end integration, then we probably wouldn't have any doubts about what we have installed. However, at this point, we're still trying to figure out how to use it end-to-end."
Bitbucket Server is ranked 2nd in Version Control with 17 reviews while GitHub is ranked 3rd in Version Control with 64 reviews. Bitbucket Server is rated 8.4, while GitHub is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Bitbucket Server writes "An easy to use solution that works as a code repository for developers and helps them merge changes ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub writes "Beneficial version control and continuous integration, but guides would be helpful". Bitbucket Server is most compared with Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and AWS CodeCommit, whereas GitHub is most compared with Snyk, AWS CodeCommit, Atlassian SourceTree, Bitbucket and SonarQube. See our Bitbucket Server 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.
