We performed a comparison between AWS CodeCommit and Bitbucket Server 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."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."
"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 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."
"Integration of Bitbucket with JIRA & Bamboo is well done by Atlassian."
"It is an amazingly stable solution."
"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."
"I believe it's user-friendly for our developers, and it's effective in terms of traceability for tracking our actions."
"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."
"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 tasks on Bitbucket must be automatically integrated into Jira."
"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."
"Instead of providing only raw features and plugins, Atlassian should provide a ready-to-use integration of both choices to incorporate "trunk-based" development."
"Enhancing the real-time reflection of changes online is an area that could benefit from improvement."
"Some of the capabilities that I am looking for from a command line are not really available."
"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."
AWS CodeCommit is ranked 5th in Version Control with 2 reviews while Bitbucket Server is ranked 2nd in Version Control with 17 reviews. AWS CodeCommit is rated 7.6, while Bitbucket Server 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 Server writes "An easy to use solution that works as a code repository for developers and helps them merge changes ". AWS CodeCommit is most compared with Bitbucket, GitHub and Atlassian SourceTree, whereas Bitbucket Server is most compared with Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and GitHub. See our AWS CodeCommit vs. Bitbucket Server 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.
