We performed a comparison between Bitbucket Server and Git 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."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"It is an amazingly stable solution."
"The tool makes pushing codes and setting up CI/CD pipelines easy."
"Its standout features are the seamless integration with various intelligent tools and its user-friendly nature."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is server management."
"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."
"Git offers the ability to roll back to the previous version. You can also track all the small changes that you do."
"Git is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The most valuable feature of Git is its reliability and user popularity."
"I believe it is beneficial to maintain a detailed log or history of who did what to a project and which user committed to the change."
"The implementation is easy."
"We use the tool to store codes."
"You can have a central code repository using Git and have local code branches."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten...Since I am a very simple user of the tool, its scalability is good for me."
"Some of the capabilities that I am looking for from a command line are not really available."
"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."
"The product interface consists of multiple features that are complicated to navigate for new users."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it's not very user-friendly or intuitive."
"Bitbucket Server can experience performance issues when pushing a large amount of code. This process may take a considerable amount of time."
"The tasks on Bitbucket must be automatically integrated into Jira."
"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."
"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 main problem for me is the frequent upgrades in the solution because every other upgrade is a minefield. When you do the upgrade, there is always something that doesn't work."
"I would rate the initial setup process a four, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the most difficult and 10 being the easiest. The reason for this rating is that once there are conflicts, it takes a lot of effort to resolve them."
"If the solution could provide more language support options such as Korean, it would be helpful."
"If the file changes are on the same line, we need to resolve a merge conflict manually. Let's say there is a merge conflict on line 50 because we have multiple commits on the same line number. Git could add some artificial intelligence to resolve the conflict automatically."
"If another person raises a pull request under the same ID assigned to the previous person, and both parties modify the tool, their changes will be grouped together in the same request until it is closed, which is an issue."
"The scalability could be better. I think it requires some discipline to have large teams working on the same project without facing problems merging code. I'm using Git for personal projects, but I know companies face merge conflicts when more than one person is working on code simultaneously."
"New developers sometimes find it difficult to call a review or create a request."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing model of Git."
Bitbucket Server is ranked 2nd in Version Control with 17 reviews while Git is ranked 4th in Version Control with 35 reviews. Bitbucket Server is rated 8.4, while Git 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 Git writes "A stable solution that can aid its users in maintaining all application developments ". Bitbucket Server is most compared with Bitbucket, Atlassian SourceTree, AWS CodeCommit and GitHub, whereas Git is most compared with Atlassian SourceTree, Canonical Bazaar, IBM Rational ClearCase, Surround SCM and Helix Core. See our Bitbucket Server vs. Git 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.
