We compared Bitbucket and Bitbucket Server based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, Bitbucket and Bitbucket Server both offer seamless integration with other development tools, reliable version control systems, and efficient collaboration capabilities. Bitbucket has competitive pricing options, flexible licensing, and responsive customer service. Bitbucket Server provides powerful version control, excellent collaboration features, and comprehensive security measures. Both products require improvement in user interface and navigation, better integration with other tools, and enhancements in performance and scalability.
Features: Bitbucket focuses on its seamless integration with other tools and efficient collaboration capabilities. Bitbucket Server emphasizes powerful version control, reliable repository management, and comprehensive security measures.
Pricing and ROI: Bitbucket offers competitive pricing options and a straightforward setup process. The licensing options are flexible and user-friendly. Users find the pricing to be reasonable and appreciate the straightforward setup process. Users also find the licensing terms to be fair., Bitbucket users praised the platform for streamlining development, enhancing collaboration, and boosting productivity. They found its cost justified for version control and continuous integration. Similarly, Bitbucket Server was also seen as valuable and beneficial for user projects or processes.
Room for Improvement: Bitbucket could benefit from enhancements in terms of its user interface and navigation. Users have suggested the need for a more intuitive design, clearer labeling of features, and improved search functionality. Additionally, better integration with other development tools and platforms is desired. On the other hand, Bitbucket Server also needs improvements in its user interface and navigation, with users emphasizing the need for better integration with other tools and platforms. Additionally, improvements in performance and scalability have been suggested.
Deployment and customer support: Bitbucket has received feedback from users regarding the time needed for implementation. One user spent three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while another user took a week for deployment and setup. It is important to consider both timeframes. In contrast, Bitbucket Server users experienced variation in the duration required for deployment, setup, or implementation. One user spent three months on deployment and a week on setup, while another user completed both deployment and setup in a week, suggesting these phases might refer to the same period., Bitbucket customers highly praise the customer service and support provided. Users appreciate the promptness, efficiency, and knowledgeable assistance received. Bitbucket Server users also commend the support team's responsiveness, efficiency, and helpful guidance.
The summary above is based on 39 interviews we conducted recently with Bitbucket and Bitbucket Server users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Bitbucket is a standard source code repository with all the features you would expect. It supports Git and SVN. It's an extensive tool that provides us with merging, branching, and change management capabilities. You can compare the changes with the current and previous versions."
"You can use Bitbucket to whitelist IP addresses during deployment."
"The solution is easy to use. If I need to check out my latest code or I need to send my local code to the depositories it is simple. Overall it is has been a good experience from my side using this solution."
"The planning model is good, and so is the suite of applications around it."
"The product's most valuable feature is output backup."
"Bitbucket has a pull request-based method, similar to Git's merge request feature."
"We have a couple of different tools that allow us to tie source code changes to report bugs. It's integrated with a bug tracking system and also integrated with what requires a tracking system. So we have better facilities. We get with the command line and can type all that stuff in and get the same kind of trust, but when we d it all manually, it's not likely to happen."
"Bitbucket is significantly cheaper compared to GitHub and it provides on-premises hosting."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It takes half an hour to deploy."
"Bitbucket Server easily integrates with Jira because they are both Atlassian products."
"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."
"Integration of Bitbucket with JIRA & Bamboo is well done by Atlassian."
"In terms of benefits, I feel that many companies are moving to Bitbucket Server since it can be deployed on an on-premises model at a time when everything is being moved to the cloud."
"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."
"The product’s most valuable features are private repositories and the ability to work as a proxy for implementing CI/CD pipelines."
"I believe it's user-friendly for our developers, and it's effective in terms of traceability for tracking our actions."
"There are many places where the product could be expanded to make it a more complete solution."
"The tool offers a limited pipeline structure."
"Bitbucket should integrate a static code analyzer."
"The product could be less expensive for small companies."
"Bitbucket should consider having a CI/CD if they don’t have it already."
"The UI could be a little better compared to competing solutions."
"I would like to see the tool's desktop version."
"The solution is not user-friendly. Right now, the solution is not so easy to understand. It needs to update its design and overall user experience."
"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."
"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 product interface consists of multiple features that are complicated to navigate for new users."
"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."
"Bitbucket Server has limited user support for its free version. It is expensive."
"We opted for the on-premises solution, and while it's quite expensive, I believe there's room for improvement in terms of pricing."
"The solution's user interface could be improved because it's not very user-friendly or intuitive."
Bitbucket is ranked 1st in Version Control with 42 reviews while Bitbucket Server is ranked 2nd in Version Control with 21 reviews. Bitbucket is rated 8.4, while Bitbucket Server is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bitbucket writes "It's a good solution for storing code, but the usability and integration could be better". 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 ". Bitbucket is most compared with AWS CodeCommit, GitHub, Atlassian SourceTree, IBM Rational ClearCase and Liquibase, whereas Bitbucket Server is most compared with Atlassian SourceTree, AWS CodeCommit and GitHub. See our Bitbucket 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.