GitLab Reviews

I use GitLab to manage repository code sources, scanning code sources, and CI/CD. We have around 100 users.

GitLab helps us integrate with many types of software. You can deploy and integrate source code, various tools, webhooks, etc. 

I like GitLab's security and SAS tools.

GitLab could add a plugin to integrate with Kubernetes stuff.

I have been using GitLab for four years now.

GitLab is stable.

GitLab is scalable. You can deploy it in a Kubernetes cluster or on VMs.

We don't contact support. GitLab has such a huge community that you can easily find a solution in the forums. 

I have used Bitbucket and GitHub for personal use. We adopted GitLab because it's a good enterprise solution.

GitLab is easy to install and takes you less than a day. You download the GitLab package, configure it, and push the repos. If you want to integrate Sonar Cube or Jenkins, you can use webhooks or the Jenkins file.

GitLab has a good ROI because it can accommodate many users, and it increases your DevOps score.

GitLab has three plans: starter, professional, and LTMH. The LTMH is $99 for user permits, but some integrators in Morocco bundle GitLab into a package. It's reasonable, but they could lower the price now that we have a huge community and many users.

I rate GitLab eight out of 10. It's a good solution for DevOps and managing Ripple. It's possibly the most complete DevOps and DevSecOps platform. You can help users to make wonderful stuff with their source code and applications. GitLab supports many types of source code like Python, Ruby, etc. It's great software.

I primarily use it for verifying some things. We're using it as a repository. It's used for software code. 

I didn't have an option when coming to this solution. It was imposed on me. That said, I've had no problems so far. 

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good.

My understanding is that the setup is straightforward. 

I'm not sure of the complete capabilities of the tool as I don't use it that much. Perhaps the integration could be better. 

I've used the solution for one year, however, not so regularly.

I have not heard of any stability complaints. My understanding is that the product is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It won't crash or freeze. 

We have about 100 people using the solution in our organization. 

For our purposes, we find the solution scales well. It's okay. We've never had any issues. 

We previously used IBM CLM and RTC.

I did not directly handle the initial setup. There is an IT team, which is responsible for all the installation and setup tasks. I'm not sure how many people were involved in the deployment and maintenance of the solution. 

Our IT team set the solution up.

I haven't looked into if we have noticed an ROI or not. 

I can't speak to the exact cost or licensing structure. I don't deal with this aspect of the product. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

GitLab is a solution for source code management, container registry, pipelines, testing, and deployment.

The problem with Git is that it's a solution for managing your source code history. But with Git, you can edit the history, which is not ideal.

Another issue is the pricing model of GitLab. 

I have been using GitLab for more than a year. I am using the latest version. 

It is a stable solution. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. I would scalability rate it a ten out of ten. 

I used GitHub. GitHub did not have a container registry or testing, and it is owned by Microsoft, which raises concerns about ethics. All my decisions are based on ethics. 

The initial setup is reasonably okay. Moreover, it's already in the cloud, so I didn't need to deploy it. 

There is no deployment or maintenance staff required. 

The pricing is a bit high. I'm still on the free plan, but if I wanted to buy it, the pricing would be a bit high. There are not any additional costs associated with the standard license.

GitLab is a good solution. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. I would say it's better than GitHub.

There are two primary functions. The first function is a Git-compliant source code repository, and the second function is a full-fledged CI/CD platform.

The CI/CD functionality as a whole is pretty helpful and nice to have. Their CI/CD engine is very mature. It's very comprehensive and flexible, and compared to other projects, I believe that GitLab is number one right now from that perspective.

They have had a Kubernetes integration built in, but they recently announced that in Version 16 they're going to strip out the legacy Kubernetes integration, and then introduce a new way of doing the integration. I don't really like the new way because it is pretty focused on the on-premise environment, but we're in a hybrid environment. The integration they're offering is not really a good fit for hybrid infrastructure and I was disappointed with that new feature. 

I work for a government-based institution in the US and government-based institutions are very strict about compliance and security. The new model GitLab is offering implies the connectivity will be initiated from the server side to the clients, meaning from Kubernetes back to GitLab, and that's not going to work in our space. We cannot allow traffic back from the cloud to on-prem, so that's going to be a compliance violation. I understand why they want to implement the feature, maybe it's going to be more solid, but it looks like they aren't taking into consideration hybrid environments and the security and compliance aspects. We will find a workaround, but we're still kind of disappointed. It'll generate a lot of additional work.

One feature that has been requested by our development team is a multi-level review of the pool request. When you maintain code and you've got a lot of contributors, a contributor can submit a change in the form of a pool request. There is a feature called merge request in GitLab for when you have a team of people who are supposed to approve a change, but Atlassian BitBucket has a more complete version of the same feature, which includes a multi-approval mechanism. For instance, if you have three people, you can create a rule for how changes should be approved. Maybe they should be approved by you and me and the third guy is not really important, or it could be approved by only you or me, or all three of us together. BitBucket has that flexibility and there is no such flexibility in GitLab.

I've been using GitLab for approximately four years. 

Overall, it's pretty stable. 

Scalability is not directly a feature of GitLab because GitLab is about storing your source code. Your storage can be organized in a way that makes it very scalable. For instance, we use the NetApp Store and we are not limited at all, so whenever we hit a disk space problem, we can simply extend the storage and give it more IOPs. However, the way you organize your storage is not GitLab's responsibility.

There are about 100 people currently involved with this solution at my company. 

Their customer service is very helpful. They're really good. I communicate with tons of different support clients and GitLab's support is one of the best. A lot of people don't like calling support because it's often useless or annoying, but I would rate GitLab's support as a ten out of ten. I haven't had any complications. 

Positive

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. I don't remember having any issues related to the setup. 

There is an open-source edition and a commercial version. I've used both, but mostly I've used the commercial one. However, the open-source version is also very, very good. The commercial version is reasonably priced. It's about 20k annually. 

Checkmarx is a static analysis tool. GitLab offers, in turn, their own solution. They offer static analysis, dynamic analysis, and a lot of integration. They also offer integration with Checkmarx. There are a lot of features, actually, and plenty of tools. For the price, I think it's very comprehensive.

Compared to other products, for instance, Nessus, they're approximately at the same price level. I would put them all on the same level with approximately the same functionality, but GitLab is one of the best.

I would give this solution a ten out of ten. There are a couple of caveats, but compared to other products, GitLab is certainly the leading solution in the market right now. 

GitLab was mostly used for version control. All of the code was uploaded into GitLab and then shared across the company. We also used it for running CICD pipelines and automating those pipelines.

Basically, it was up to the mark. The solution did what it was supposed to do.

We had to write GitLab configuration files, commands and conditions, in a YML format. I would like configuration of a YML file to be done via UI rather than a code file. There should be support for code files, as well, but if there could be a UI for it and a little bit of documentation along with it, that would help.

I used this solution for two years.

The solution is stable. 

This is a scalable solution. We had around 200 users working with it. Two people are required for deployment and maintenance. 

The implementation was handled in-house. It shouldn't take a long time to implement because it's pretty basic stuff. It all depends on how much customization you want to have. 

My advice for others looking into this product is to go for it. GitLab is the future. There are some alternates, like Stash and Bitbucket, that have the same concept, but GitLab is one of the most widely used version control systems. It's easy to use.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten.

The most valuable functionality of GitLab, for me, is the DevOps. Besides the normal source control based on Git, I find the Auto DevOps features most important in the solution.

As GitLab is not perfect, what needs improvement in the solution is the Wiki feature of the groups or the repertories because currently, it's not searchable by default. You'll need an indexing service such as Elasticsearch to make it searchable, and that requires too much work, so for me, it's the main feature that should be improved in GitLab.

In the next version of the solution, from the top of my head, the documentation could be improved. Besides the Wiki, it would be good if there's documentation that would be automatically generated based on the code repository. In other words, there should be some tutorials from GitLab for developers in the next release.

I've been using GitLab for almost three years.

GitLab is a pretty stable solution, and on a scale of one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I'm rating its stability a ten. My team just learned some details about the configuration of GitLab, so it's now tuned up, and right now, there's no problem with the stability of the platform.

In terms of GitLab scalability, based on its features, it's supposed to scale easily enough geographically, but my company hasn't tried scaling it yet. It shouldn't be a big problem to scale the solution.

In terms of the technical support for GitLab, I mainly use the forums and support sites of the solution. I don't use the direct technical support line of GitLab.

The initial setup for GitLab is simple mainly because of all its features that allow you to make a startup instance of the solution simpler and quicker, and that's very good.

In terms of the pricing for GitLab, on a scale of one to five, with one being expensive and five being cheap, I'm rating pricing for the solution a four. It could still be cheaper because right now, my company has a small team, and sometimes it's difficult to use a paid product for a small team. You'd hope the team will grow and scale, but currently, you're paying a high license fee for a small team. I'm referring to the GitLab license that has premium features and will give you all features. This can be a problem for management to approve the high price of the license for a team this small.

We evaluated Azure DevOps, but we liked the style of how things are built up inside GitLab for the end-user and the developer more compared to Azure DevOps, though Azure DevOps is also a very good choice.

I'm using the latest version of GitLab.

My company has a small team and only has six users of GitLab.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, my rating for GitLab, in general, is nine. My company likes the solution very much, especially over Azure DevOps.

I would recommend GitLab for others to use.

My company is a customer of GitLab.

The solution's most valuable features are pipelines. GitLab allows you to automate things and show them diagrammatically.

The solution is much harder to get around and organize extra features. It has fewer options, and its UI is not so user-friendly.

I have been using GitLab for one year.

GitLab is a very stable solution.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

Although the solution's documentation is publicly available, you have to invest much more time to read everything and understand how to get around.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is very easy and ten is difficult, I rate the solution's initial setup a six to seven out of ten.

The solution's pricing is acceptable.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

I got familiar with the CI part of the tool. If you want to use all the features for testing and packaging, you have to use the paid version.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

My primary use case is for creating pipelines and automation workflows.

By streamlining tasks that we used to do on a daily basis and scheduling them.

CI/CD, GitLab scanning, and the cloud are the most valuable features. 

There is room for improvement in GitLab Agents. 

I would like to see more features focused on GitLab or CICD. I am not sure if  there is a roadmap for GitLab CI/CD Elite.

I have been using GitLab for five years. I am currently using version 14.5.

It is a stable solution. I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability of GitLab a three out of ten. It is low. 

It can be challenging to scale. Sharing databases and removing multiple VPNs is not easy to handle. GitLab's stability is not as good as other platforms that offer Kubernetes engines. We use OEMs instead.

There are 300 to 400 users in my company. We definitely plan to increase the usage. 

We are familiar with GitHub. 

I'll give the initial setup a six, slightly above average, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

Now we automate everything, so let's say the deployment now takes about one hour to deploy.

For the deployment process, we create a template and prepare the VM on our cloud. Then we deploy the container using the controller, which deploys the solution.

We had IT specialists and engineers for the deployment process. 

It's a bit tricky because we have a different license. I rate the pricing mode a five out of ten for now, but it might change in the future. We have an educational license, and support is not included.

GitLab offers various services, and it's important to understand which ones you truly need. Service providers might have different capabilities, and compatibility with your existing devices can be a critical issue. We haven't faced many problems with network compatibility or duplicated services so far. 

If I could go back in time, I would recommend using GitLab primarily as a reliable repository. For additional features like scanning and monitoring, it might be beneficial to explore other specialized solutions.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.