AWS CodeCommit vs GitLab

Overview

GitLab

Stacks63.4K

Followers54.5K

Votes2.5K

GitHub Stars0

Forks0

AWS CodeCommit

Stacks324

Followers826

Votes193

AWS CodeCommit vs GitLab: What are the differences?

When it comes to version control systems, AWS CodeCommit and GitLab are two popular options that developers can choose from. While both provide similar functionality, there are some key differences between the two platforms. In this document, we will explore and compare the main differences between AWS CodeCommit and GitLab.

Hosting Infrastructure: AWS CodeCommit is a fully managed service provided by Amazon Web Services. It is hosted on the AWS cloud infrastructure, ensuring a reliable and scalable version control system. On the other hand, GitLab can be hosted on-premises or in the cloud, giving users the flexibility to choose their preferred hosting environment.
Integration with Other AWS Services: One significant advantage of AWS CodeCommit is its seamless integration with other AWS services. Developers can easily integrate their repositories with services like AWS CodePipeline and AWS CodeBuild for streamlined continuous integration and deployment workflows. GitLab, on the other hand, has a rich set of integrations but does not offer the same level of native integration with AWS services.
Pricing Model: The pricing model is another area where AWS CodeCommit and GitLab differ. AWS CodeCommit is a pay-as-you-go service, meaning users are charged based on the amount of data stored in repositories and the data transfer in and out of the service. GitLab, on the other hand, offers different pricing tiers, including a free tier for small teams, and higher tiers with additional features and support.
Access Control and Security: Both AWS CodeCommit and GitLab offer robust access control mechanisms to ensure the security of repositories. AWS CodeCommit integrates with AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM), allowing developers to manage access at various levels, from repository to branch level. GitLab also provides fine-grained access control options, including user roles and permissions. However, since GitLab can be self-hosted, users have full control over the security measures and can configure them according to their specific requirements.
Scalability and Performance: AWS CodeCommit leverages the scalability and high availability of the AWS cloud infrastructure, ensuring optimal performance for large-scale projects. GitLab, on the other hand, can also scale based on the hosting environment, but users need to ensure sufficient resources are allocated to handle increased demand.
Community and Support: GitLab has a thriving open-source community and offers extensive documentation and support resources. Users can benefit from the knowledge and contributions of the community, ensuring a rich ecosystem. AWS CodeCommit, being an AWS service, offers support through AWS Support plans, but the community aspect is not as prevalent as in GitLab.

In summary, AWS CodeCommit provides a fully managed version control system with seamless integration with other AWS services, while GitLab offers the flexibility of self-hosting and a vibrant open-source community. The choice between the two depends on factors such as hosting preferences, integration requirements, pricing structure, and the level of community support desired.

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 GitLab, AWS CodeCommit

Anonymous

May 25, 2020

Decided

Gitlab as A LOT of features that GitHub and Azure DevOps are missing. Even if both GH and Azure are backed by Microsoft, GitLab being open source has a faster upgrade rate and the hosted by gitlab.com solution seems more appealing than anything else! Quick win: the UI is way better and the Pipeline is way easier to setup on GitLab!

624k views624k

Comments

Phillip

Developer at Coach Align

Mar 18, 2021

Decided

Both of us are far more familiar with GitHub than Gitlab, and so for our first big project together decided to go with what we know here instead of figuring out something new (there are so many new things we need to figure out, might as well reduce the number of optionally new things, lol). We aren't currently taking advantage of GitHub Actions or very many other built-in features (besides Dependabot) but luckily it integrates very well with the other services we're using.

409k views409k

Comments

Weverton

CTO at SourceLevel

Jul 28, 2020

Review

Using an inclusive language is crucial for fostering a diverse culture. Git has changed the naming conventions to be more language-inclusive, and so you should change. Our development tools, like GitHub and GitLab, already supports the change.

SourceLevel deals very nicely with repositories that changed the master branch to a more appropriate word. Besides, you can use the grep linter the look for exclusive terms contained in the source code.

As the inclusive language gap may happen in other aspects of our lives, have you already thought about them?

944k views944k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

GitLab	AWS CodeCommit
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.	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.
Manage git repositories with fine grained access controls that keep your code secure;Perform code reviews and enhance collaboration with merge requests;Each project can also have an issue tracker and a wiki;Used by more than 100,000 organizations, GitLab is the most popular solution to manage git repositories on-premises;Completely free and open source (MIT Expat license);Powered by Ruby on Rails	Collaboration;Encryption;Access Control;High Availability and Durability;Unlimited Repositories;Easy Access and Integration
Statistics
GitHub Stars 0	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 0	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 63.4K	Stacks 324
Followers 54.5K	Followers 826
Votes 2.5K	Votes 193
Pros & Cons
Pros 508 Self hosted 431 Free 339 Has community edition 242 Easy setup 240 Familiar interface Cons 28 Slow ui performance 9 Introduce breaking bugs every release 6 Insecure (no published IP list for whitelisting) 2 Built-in Docker Registry 1 Review Apps feature	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 Bad diffing/no blame 2 No webhooks
Integrations
No integrations available	Git Jenkins

What are some alternatives to GitLab, 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.

Bitbucket

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.

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 GitLab: What are the differences?

Hosting Infrastructure: AWS CodeCommit is a fully managed service provided by Amazon Web Services. It is hosted on the AWS cloud infrastructure, ensuring a reliable and scalable version control system. On the other hand, GitLab can be hosted on-premises or in the cloud, giving users the flexibility to choose their preferred hosting environment.
Integration with Other AWS Services: One significant advantage of AWS CodeCommit is its seamless integration with other AWS services. Developers can easily integrate their repositories with services like AWS CodePipeline and AWS CodeBuild for streamlined continuous integration and deployment workflows. GitLab, on the other hand, has a rich set of integrations but does not offer the same level of native integration with AWS services.
Pricing Model: The pricing model is another area where AWS CodeCommit and GitLab differ. AWS CodeCommit is a pay-as-you-go service, meaning users are charged based on the amount of data stored in repositories and the data transfer in and out of the service. GitLab, on the other hand, offers different pricing tiers, including a free tier for small teams, and higher tiers with additional features and support.
Access Control and Security: Both AWS CodeCommit and GitLab offer robust access control mechanisms to ensure the security of repositories. AWS CodeCommit integrates with AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM), allowing developers to manage access at various levels, from repository to branch level. GitLab also provides fine-grained access control options, including user roles and permissions. However, since GitLab can be self-hosted, users have full control over the security measures and can configure them according to their specific requirements.
Scalability and Performance: AWS CodeCommit leverages the scalability and high availability of the AWS cloud infrastructure, ensuring optimal performance for large-scale projects. GitLab, on the other hand, can also scale based on the hosting environment, but users need to ensure sufficient resources are allocated to handle increased demand.
Community and Support: GitLab has a thriving open-source community and offers extensive documentation and support resources. Users can benefit from the knowledge and contributions of the community, ensuring a rich ecosystem. AWS CodeCommit, being an AWS service, offers support through AWS Support plans, but the community aspect is not as prevalent as in GitLab.

AWS CodeCommit vs GitLab

Overview