AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket

Overview

Bitbucket

Stacks41.1K

Followers33.4K

Votes2.8K

AWS CodeCommit

Stacks324

Followers826

Votes193

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket: What are the differences?

Introduction

AWS CodeCommit and Bitbucket are two popular code hosting platforms that provide version control services for software development teams. While both platforms offer similar functionalities, there are key differences between them. This article will highlight the six main differences between AWS CodeCommit and Bitbucket.

Integration with AWS services: AWS CodeCommit is fully integrated with other AWS services, allowing seamless collaboration with other tools such as AWS CodeBuild and AWS CodePipeline. On the other hand, Bitbucket provides integration with some AWS services, but not as deep and comprehensive as AWS CodeCommit.
Pricing model: AWS CodeCommit follows a pay-as-you-go model, where users are charged for the number of repositories and the amount of data transferred. While Bitbucket offers a free plan for small teams with limited features, it also provides a tiered pricing model based on the number of users.
Scalability and performance: AWS CodeCommit is built on AWS infrastructure and benefits from its scale and performance. It can easily handle large code repositories and concurrent users. Bitbucket, on the other hand, might have performance limitations when dealing with large repositories and heavy workloads.
User interface and user experience: Bitbucket offers a more user-friendly and intuitive interface with features such as inline commenting, pull request reviews, and code search. AWS CodeCommit has a simpler interface that focuses more on the core version control functionalities and lacks some advanced collaboration features.
Security and compliance: AWS CodeCommit provides robust security features by leveraging AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) for user authentication and authorization. It also supports encryption at rest and in transit. Bitbucket offers similar security measures, but the level of control and compliance might not be as comprehensive as AWS CodeCommit.
Extensibility and integration with third-party tools: Bitbucket has a wide range of plugins and integrations available in its marketplace, allowing users to extend its functionality and integrate with popular third-party tools such as JIRA and Confluence. AWS CodeCommit, on the other hand, has limited options for extensibility and integration.

In summary, AWS CodeCommit stands out with its deep integration with AWS services, scalability, performance, and advanced security features. On the other hand, Bitbucket offers a more user-friendly interface, flexible pricing model, extensive plugin ecosystem, and seamless integration with popular Atlassian tools.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Bitbucket, AWS CodeCommit

Weverton

CTO at SourceLevel

Aug 3, 2020

Review

Do you review your Pull/Merge Request before assigning Reviewers?

If you work in a team opening a Pull Request (or Merge Request) looks appropriate. However, have you ever thought about opening a Pull/Merge Request when working by yourself? Here's a checklist of things you can review in your own:

Pick the correct target branch
Make Drafts explicit
Name things properly
Ask help for tools
Remove the noise
Fetch necessary data
Understand Mergeability
Pass the message
Add screenshots
Be found in the future
Comment inline in your changes

Read the blog post for more detailed explanation for each item :D

What else do you review before asking for code review?

1.19M views1.19M

Comments

Weverton

CTO at SourceLevel

Jul 22, 2020

Review

One of the magic tricks git performs is the ability to rewrite log history. You can do it in many ways, but git rebase -i is the one I most use. With this command, It’s possible to switch commits order, remove a commit, squash two or more commits, or edit, for instance.

It’s particularly useful to run it before opening a pull request. It allows developers to “clean up” the mess and organize commits before submitting to review. If you follow the practice 3 and 4, then the list of commits should look very similar to a task list. It should reveal the rationale you had, telling the story of how you end up with that final code.

1.1M views1.1M

Comments

Elmar

CEO, Managing Director at Wouters Media

Nov 9, 2020

Decided

I first used BitBucket because it had private repo's, and it didn't disappoint me. Also with the smooth integration of Jira, the decision to use BitBucket as a full application maintenance service was as easy as 1, 2, 3.

I honestly love BitBucket, by the looks, by the UI, and the smooth integration with Tower.

586k views586k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Bitbucket	AWS CodeCommit
Bitbucket gives teams one place to plan projects, collaborate on code, test and deploy, all with free private Git repositories. Teams choose Bitbucket because it has a superior Jira integration, built-in CI/CD, & is free for up to 5 users.	CodeCommit eliminates the need to operate your own source control system or worry about scaling its infrastructure. You can use CodeCommit to securely store anything from source code to binaries, and it works seamlessly with your existing Git tools.
Unlimited private repositories, charged per user;Best-in-class Jira integration;Built-in CI/CD;Deployment visibility;Embedded Trello boards; Command Instructions;Source Browser;Git Powered Wikis;Integrated Issue Tracking;Code reviews with inline comments;Compare View;Newsfeed;Followers;Developer Profiles;Autocompletion for @username mentions;Support for Mercurial	Collaboration;Encryption;Access Control;High Availability and Durability;Unlimited Repositories;Easy Access and Integration
Statistics
Stacks 41.1K	Stacks 324
Followers 33.4K	Followers 826
Votes 2.8K	Votes 193
Pros & Cons
Pros 905 Free private repos 397 Simple setup 349 Nice ui and tools 342 Unlimited private repositories 240 Affordable git hosting Cons 19 Not much community activity 17 Difficult to review prs because of confusing ui 15 Quite buggy 10 Managed by enterprise Java company 8 CI tool is not free of charge	Pros 44 Free private repos 26 IAM integration 24 Pay-As-You-Go Pricing 20 Amazon feels the most Secure 19 Repo data encrypted at rest Cons 12 UI sucks 4 SLOW 3 No Issue Tracker 2 NO LFS support 2 No webhooks
Integrations
Git AWS Cloud9 Sentry Microsoft Azure npm Trello Slack Confluence Docker Jira	Git Jenkins

What are some alternatives to Bitbucket, AWS CodeCommit?

GitHub

GitHub is the best place to share code with friends, co-workers, classmates, and complete strangers. Over three million people use GitHub to build amazing things together.

GitLab

GitLab offers git repository management, code reviews, issue tracking, activity feeds and wikis. Enterprises install GitLab on-premise and connect it with LDAP and Active Directory servers for secure authentication and authorization. A single GitLab server can handle more than 25,000 users but it is also possible to create a high availability setup with multiple active servers.

RhodeCode

RhodeCode provides centralized control over distributed code repositories. Developers get code review tools and custom APIs that work in Mercurial, Git & SVN. Firms get unified security and user control so that their CTOs can sleep at night

Gogs

The goal of this project is to make the easiest, fastest and most painless way to set up a self-hosted Git service. With Go, this can be done in independent binary distribution across ALL platforms that Go supports, including Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows.

Gitea

Git with a cup of tea! Painless self-hosted all-in-one software development service, including Git hosting, code review, team collaboration, package registry and CI/CD. It published under the MIT license.

Upsource

Upsource summarizes recent changes in your repository, showing commit messages, authors, quick diffs, links to detailed diff views and associated code reviews. A commit graph helps visualize the history of commits, branches and merges in your repository.

Beanstalk

A single process to commit code, review with the team, and deploy the final result to your customers.

GitBucket

GitBucket provides a Github-like UI and features such as Git repository hosting via HTTP and SSH, repository viewer, issues, wiki and pull request.

BinTray

Bintray offers developers the fastest way to publish and consume OSS software releases. With Bintray's full self-service platform developers have full control over their published software and how it is distributed to the world.

Gitolite

Gitolite allows you to setup git hosting on a central server, with fine-grained access control and many more powerful features. Gitolite is an access control layer on top of git.

Related Comparisons

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket: What are the differences?

Introduction

Integration with AWS services: AWS CodeCommit is fully integrated with other AWS services, allowing seamless collaboration with other tools such as AWS CodeBuild and AWS CodePipeline. On the other hand, Bitbucket provides integration with some AWS services, but not as deep and comprehensive as AWS CodeCommit.
Pricing model: AWS CodeCommit follows a pay-as-you-go model, where users are charged for the number of repositories and the amount of data transferred. While Bitbucket offers a free plan for small teams with limited features, it also provides a tiered pricing model based on the number of users.
Scalability and performance: AWS CodeCommit is built on AWS infrastructure and benefits from its scale and performance. It can easily handle large code repositories and concurrent users. Bitbucket, on the other hand, might have performance limitations when dealing with large repositories and heavy workloads.
User interface and user experience: Bitbucket offers a more user-friendly and intuitive interface with features such as inline commenting, pull request reviews, and code search. AWS CodeCommit has a simpler interface that focuses more on the core version control functionalities and lacks some advanced collaboration features.
Security and compliance: AWS CodeCommit provides robust security features by leveraging AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) for user authentication and authorization. It also supports encryption at rest and in transit. Bitbucket offers similar security measures, but the level of control and compliance might not be as comprehensive as AWS CodeCommit.
Extensibility and integration with third-party tools: Bitbucket has a wide range of plugins and integrations available in its marketplace, allowing users to extend its functionality and integrate with popular third-party tools such as JIRA and Confluence. AWS CodeCommit, on the other hand, has limited options for extensibility and integration.

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket

Overview

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket: What are the differences?