We performed a comparison between AWS CodeCommit 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."AWS CodeCommit is simple and cheap."
"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."
"The initial setup was easy."
"This product is very good for storing and versioning code."
"I would rate the stability a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature is help offered by the community for open-source projects."
"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 product has a very user-friendly interface and user-friendly security."
"The deployment is fast since we just have to run the script, and once it's done, it takes a few minutes."
"I have found GitHub stable."
"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 GUI design is poor, so I exclusively use the CLI, which is much easier to use and understand. It would be great to see the GUI updated to be more user-friendly."
"The GitHub repository needs an upgraded user interface and overall UI improvements."
"It is difficult to merge a code or restore it to an older version."
"The security point should be addressed in the next release and scaling is also an issue."
"I would want to see some form of code security scanning implemented."
"It would be better if the amount of storage were increased."
"Could be more user friendly."
"The UI is a little outdated, so that could be improved."
AWS CodeCommit is ranked 5th in Version Control with 2 reviews while GitHub is ranked 3rd in Version Control with 64 reviews. AWS CodeCommit is rated 7.6, while GitHub is rated 8.6. 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 GitHub writes "Beneficial version control and continuous integration, but guides would be helpful". AWS CodeCommit is most compared with Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree and Bitbucket Server, whereas GitHub is most compared with Snyk, Atlassian SourceTree, Bitbucket, Fortify on Demand and Checkmarx One. See our AWS CodeCommit 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.