We compared Bitbucket and AWS CodeCommit based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Bitbucket stands out for its seamless integration with various tools, robust version control system, and efficient collaboration features. Users appreciate competitive pricing options, user-friendly licensing, and excellent customer support. On the other hand, AWS CodeCommit is praised for its efficient version control, integration with AWS services, reliable performance, security measures, and user-friendly interface. Areas for improvement in CodeCommit include lack of information on customer service, pricing, setup, and ROI. Additionally, suggestions for improvement include enhancing the user interface, navigation, and integration with other tools.
Features: Bitbucket's valuable features include seamless integration with other tools, a reliable version control system, and efficient collaboration capabilities. On the other hand, AWS CodeCommit offers an efficient version control system, seamless integration with other AWS services, reliable performance, comprehensive security measures, and a user-friendly interface.
Pricing and ROI: Bitbucket offers competitive pricing options and a straightforward setup process. The licensing options are flexible and user-friendly. On the other hand, no information is available regarding the pricing, setup cost, and licensing of AWS CodeCommit., The users reported positive ROI with Bitbucket, highlighting benefits like streamlined development, improved collaboration, and increased productivity. On the other hand, the ROI for AWS CodeCommit was not specified in the reviews.
Room for Improvement: Bitbucket could improve its user interface, navigation, and search functionality. Users also recommend better integration with development tools and platforms, and simplifying the process of setting up repositories and configuring permissions. In contrast, AWS CodeCommit has areas for improvement.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user feedback, Bitbucket users reported spending around three months on deployment and an extra week on setup, while AWS CodeCommit user feedback regarding duration is currently unavailable., Bitbucket users have expressed satisfaction with the prompt, efficient, and knowledgeable customer service provided. In contrast, no information is available about the customer service and support of AWS CodeCommit.
The summary above is based on 33 interviews we conducted recently with Bitbucket and AWS CodeCommit users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"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."
"AWS CodeCommit is simple and cheap."
"Bitbucket is feasible and friendly compared to Visual Studio DevOps on the Microsoft platform."
"It seems to be quite scalable."
"The most valuable thing we have found is the workloads are good in Jira and we are able to control the access."
"Bitbucket works fine for what I'm doing. It's slightly different from GitHub, but it's a good tool for storing code."
"The most valuable feature of Bitbucket is its issue management."
"It is easy to write code and store it in the central repository."
"The product's most valuable feature is output backup."
"Bitbucket works, and it's reliable"
"The tool should improve its UI."
"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."
"When users are given access for the first time, they should have some basic setups to help them specify their purposes."
"Currently, what's lacking in Bitbucket is the assignment feature."
"I would like to see the integration with some of the cloud service providers improved."
"I would like to see the tool's desktop version."
"I would like to see the security logs option on the tool directly. The current way to work with security logs is through an email protocol."
"The module component needs improvement."
"Bitbucket doesn't currently offer AI functionalities."
"It would be beneficial to have a straightforward mechanism for integrating the initial tasks defined in Bitbucket with Jira when the need arises."
AWS CodeCommit is ranked 5th in Version Control with 2 reviews while Bitbucket is ranked 1st in Version Control with 42 reviews. AWS CodeCommit is rated 7.6, while Bitbucket is rated 8.4. 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 Bitbucket writes "It's a good solution for storing code, but the usability and integration could be better". AWS CodeCommit is most compared with GitHub, Atlassian SourceTree and Bitbucket Server, whereas Bitbucket is most compared with Bitbucket Server, GitHub, Atlassian SourceTree, Liquibase and IBM Rational ClearCase. See our AWS CodeCommit vs. Bitbucket 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.