Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GitHub CoPilot vs QuickBase comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.6
GitHub CoPilot boosts productivity, efficiency, and resource management, though it may be costly for some individual users.
Sentiment score
7.1
QuickBase delivers significant financial benefits by reducing costs, increasing productivity, improving efficiency, and enhancing business visibility.
Efficiencies with GitHub CoPilot have improved by 30%, which means a quicker go-to market and a simplified way of documenting technical designs.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
4.5
GitHub CoPilot support receives mixed reviews; users value knowledgeable help but note delays, relying on community and Microsoft resources.
Sentiment score
7.8
QuickBase customer service excels in quick technical support with extensive resources, despite limited weekend support and occasional delays.
With a large user base, it covers a wide range of questions, from simple to complex, ensuring that answers are available.
Technical support is really good, and I would rate it a nine out of ten.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.1
GitHub CoPilot scales well but faces reliability issues under high traffic, with performance varying by deployment scale and plan.
Sentiment score
7.7
QuickBase is highly scalable, efficiently managing growth in users and data, with strong support for expanding applications.
It cannot be fully depended on to build every component and run a large enterprise application without significant human intervention.
With an enterprise plan, there are no limitations, so scalability is not an issue.
Quick Base has high potential to scale.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.5
GitHub CoPilot is stable with minor connectivity issues, prompting some users to explore alternatives for certain tasks.
Sentiment score
7.8
QuickBase is stable with minor disruptions, rated highly by users for reliability and timely maintenance communication.
In most cases, it does not generate irrelevant code.
At certain times, you may not get the required response and realize it's either down or not responding for other reasons.
 

Room For Improvement

GitHub CoPilot needs improved stability, integration, suggestion accuracy, contextual awareness, language support, and pricing to enhance functionality and usability.
QuickBase requires better customization, UI, mobile experience, improved reporting, integrations, security, formulas, training, APIs, and cost management.
There is excellent support across various code editors like JetBrains, VS Code, and NeoGen.
To understand our application better and learn from it would likely require access to the entire codebase, which a lot of companies may not allow.
The introduction of hooks would allow for easier deployment elsewhere, such as GitHub.
 

Setup Cost

GitHub CoPilot costs $10 monthly for personal use, $19 for enterprise, with possible discounts for current GitHub licensees.
Enterprise buyers appreciate QuickBase's flexible pricing, but costs rise with users; negotiating tailored solutions is advised for large enterprises.
They recently made Copilot free to use up to a certain limit, which is a positive change.
Pricing could be cheaper.
 

Valuable Features

GitHub CoPilot enhances productivity with code generation, test creation, multi-language support, and seamless IDE integration for faster development.
QuickBase provides code-free app creation, customization, and efficient data management, enhancing operational efficiency with PaaS capabilities and API integrations.
It is certainly time-saving; we have seen upwards of around 30% plus of time savings using GitHub CoPilot.
Copilot is integrated into my environment, providing the context and the bigger picture of how the code is used throughout the project.
This provides a unified solution without needing different databases or pipelines.
 

Categories and Ranking

GitHub CoPilot
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
8th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
AI Code Assistants (1st)
QuickBase
Ranking in Rapid Application Development Software
19th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
75
Ranking in other categories
Low-Code Development Platforms (15th), Employee Time Tracking Software (7th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Rapid Application Development Software category, the mindshare of GitHub CoPilot is 6.0%, up from 2.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of QuickBase is 1.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Rapid Application Development Software
 

Featured Reviews

TarunRevalla - PeerSpot reviewer
Saves time with context-aware code suggestions and seamless integration
In terms of improvements for Copilot, I haven't considered much since it offers many useful interactions. It integrates well with GitHub repositories, tracks changes on PRs, and provides valuable suggestions where applicable. There is excellent support across various code editors like JetBrains, VS Code, and NeoGen. I also run many automations within GitHub. When an NPR is raised, it automatically provides suggestions, which is part of the enterprise edition without limitations. While I don't see immediate room for improvement, one suggestion is for Copilot to provide specific suggestions for certain lines of code instead of rewriting entire sections. If the tool could focus on specific lines where changes are suggested, it would save time and reduce server load.
Bhavatha Ranjanni S - PeerSpot reviewer
Its extensive scope allows multiple users with diverse professional backgrounds to engage on a single platform
When learning QuickBase, I noticed a shift in its cost structure. It operated on a cost-efficient model tied to the number of users, with invoicing based on applicants. The recent changes have increased costs based on user activity, such as viewing reports or interacting with specific fields. This shift makes QuickBase more expensive to use as activity increases. Lowering these costs could potentially broaden QuickBase's user base, similar to how Microsoft PowerApps operates. The visualization in QuickBase could be enhanced. Due to cost and usage efficiency concerns, our utilization of QuickBase is limited within our company. A few individuals are currently utilizing QuickBase. We need to consider the cost-to-usage ratio and prioritize increasing adoption.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Rapid Application Development Software solutions are best for your needs.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Healthcare Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
53%
Financial Services Firm
5%
Computer Software Company
5%
Manufacturing Company
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GitHub CoPilot?
I honestly don't have a clue about how much we usually pay for GitHub CoPilot because the increase in license costs is managed by another team, and I am not the administrator, so I generally don't ...
What needs improvement with GitHub CoPilot?
The areas of GitHub CoPilot that need improvement include the ability to debug, which is applicable to AI-driven tools that allow you to code, and to understand our application better and learn fro...
What do you like most about QuickBase?
The most valuable feature of QuickBase is its dynamic form capabilities. These forms allow backend automation, making tasks like updating data based on specific conditions much easier.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for QuickBase?
Pricing could be cheaper. I rate it around a seven out of ten. Mainly larger companies use it, which influences the pricing structure.
What needs improvement with QuickBase?
The user interface of Quick Base is complex. It can be difficult to navigate, and ideally, it should be simplified to facilitate use by anyone, not just certified individuals. There is room for imp...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Quick Base, TSheets
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Procter & Gamble, Tesla, Norwegian Cruise Line, Google, Metso, Agero, Kayak, PTC, Patra Corp, TomTom, Southwest Airlines, FedEx Office
Find out what your peers are saying about GitHub CoPilot vs. QuickBase and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.