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."It is an amazingly stable solution."
"I believe it's user-friendly for our developers, and it's effective in terms of traceability for tracking our actions."
"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."
"Our code is secure."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The tool makes pushing codes and setting up CI/CD pipelines easy."
"The product is easy to maintain."
"Integration of Bitbucket with JIRA & Bamboo is well done by Atlassian."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable features are GitHub are the standard features, they are very useful."
"We can make a private repository."
"GitHub is good for small companies and for personal use."
"The deployment is fast since we just have to run the script, and once it's done, it takes a few minutes."
"The initial setup was easy."
"The learning curve is small."
"I'm able to access any repository that I like, whether it's public or private."
"Instead of providing only raw features and plugins, Atlassian should provide a ready-to-use integration of both choices to incorporate "trunk-based" development."
"Bitbucket Server has limited user support for its free version. It is expensive."
"Enhancing the real-time reflection of changes online is an area that could benefit from improvement."
"The user experience is tedious and long-winded. It could also be smoother from an admin's perspective."
"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."
"Bitbucket Server can experience performance issues when pushing a large amount of code. This process may take a considerable amount of time."
"The product interface consists of multiple features that are complicated to navigate for new users."
"Some of the capabilities that I am looking for from a command line are not really available."
"The solution's cost is high and should be reduced."
"GitHub could add some more security features."
"The storage for this solution could be improved."
"GitHub needs to improve its UI."
"The merging features can be improved."
"They're improving the work items to track the progress of the team, but in my experience, Azure DevOps is better in this functionality. GitHub needs to improve the form to track the progress of the work done by a team."
"The solution could have better support for the Markdown language."
"It would be good if there were training materials for junior developers."
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.
