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."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."
"Its standout features are the seamless integration with various intelligent tools and its user-friendly nature."
"The tool makes pushing codes and setting up CI/CD pipelines easy."
"The product’s most valuable features are private repositories and the ability to work as a proxy for implementing CI/CD pipelines."
"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."
"Our code is secure."
"In terms of benefits, I feel that many companies are moving to Bitbucket Server since it can be deployed on an on-premises model at a time when everything is being moved to the cloud."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"GitHub is the best tool for source repositories."
"GitHub is pure or open-source; you can access it anywhere. You can have a lot of collateral information. You can make the changes and do the reviews from one place."
"The flexibility of this solution has been most valuable. It operates on a pay per use basis where you can ramp up or decrease usage."
"The initial setup was easy."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the version control field."
"The most valuable feature is help offered by the community for open-source projects."
"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."
"During our use of GitHub, we have not encountered any problems and GitHub adds new features frequently."
"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."
"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."
"The response time of the product's support team may not be good enough to meet the expectations of users, making it an area where improvements are required."
"We opted for the on-premises solution, and while it's quite expensive, I believe there's room for improvement in terms of pricing."
"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."
"Instead of providing only raw features and plugins, Atlassian should provide a ready-to-use integration of both choices to incorporate "trunk-based" development."
"The user experience is tedious and long-winded. It could also be smoother from an admin's perspective."
"Enhancing the real-time reflection of changes online is an area that could benefit from improvement."
"Github needs more storage."
"GitHub could add some more security features."
"The onboarding process could be simplified."
"I would want to see some form of code security scanning implemented."
"The initial setup and implementation could be easier, I had some difficulties with it at first but I don't have a development background."
"We want to incorporate management comments within GitHub, making it more like a product management tool. We haven't done that yet. Another change we're considering is migrating from GitHub to Azure DevOps, especially now that Microsoft has introduced it."
"It would be good if there were training materials for junior developers."
"The stability can be improved."
Bitbucket Server is ranked 2nd in Version Control with 21 reviews while GitHub is ranked 3rd in Version Control with 74 reviews. Bitbucket Server is rated 8.2, 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, Fortify on Demand, Bitbucket and Contrast Security Assess. 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.
