StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. DevOps
  3. Code Collaboration
  4. Code Collaboration Version Control
  5. AWS CodeCommit vs Google Cloud Source Repositories

AWS CodeCommit vs Google Cloud Source Repositories

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

AWS CodeCommit
AWS CodeCommit
Stacks324
Followers826
Votes193
Google Cloud Source Repositories
Google Cloud Source Repositories
Stacks91
Followers160
Votes0

AWS CodeCommit vs Google Cloud Source Repositories: What are the differences?

Key Differences between AWS CodeCommit and Google Cloud Source Repositories

AWS CodeCommit and Google Cloud Source Repositories are both version control services that provide managed Git repositories for developers to securely store and manage their code. However, there are several key differences between these two services.

  1. Hosting platform: AWS CodeCommit is a service provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS), while Google Cloud Source Repositories is a service provided by Google Cloud Platform (GCP). This means that CodeCommit is hosted on AWS infrastructure, while Source Repositories is hosted on GCP infrastructure.

  2. Integration with other services: CodeCommit integrates seamlessly with other AWS services, such as AWS CodePipeline for continuous delivery and AWS CodeBuild for building and testing code. On the other hand, Source Repositories integrates with other GCP services, such as Google Cloud Functions for serverless computing and Google Cloud Build for building, testing, and deploying code.

  3. Pricing model: CodeCommit offers a pay-as-you-go pricing model, where you only pay for the resources you use. It also includes a free tier for the first five active users per month. Source Repositories, on the other hand, offers a different pricing model based on storage and data transfer, and it also includes a free tier for a certain amount of storage and commits per month.

  4. Access control: CodeCommit provides fine-grained access control through AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM), allowing you to set granular permissions for users and groups. Source Repositories, on the other hand, uses Google Cloud IAM for access control, which also provides fine-grained permissions based on roles and access levels.

  5. Code review capabilities: CodeCommit offers built-in code review capabilities, allowing developers to collaborate and review code changes before merging them into the main branch. Source Repositories, on the other hand, does not have built-in code review capabilities, but it can integrate with external code review tools like Gerrit for code review workflows.

  6. Geographical availability: CodeCommit is available in multiple AWS regions globally, allowing you to choose the region that is closest to your users and provides the lowest latency. Source Repositories, on the other hand, is available in fewer regions compared to CodeCommit, as it is limited to the regions where GCP services are available.

In summary, AWS CodeCommit and Google Cloud Source Repositories differ in terms of hosting platform, integration with other services, pricing model, access control, code review capabilities, and geographical availability.

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)
or
Manual

Detailed Comparison

AWS CodeCommit
AWS CodeCommit
Google Cloud Source Repositories
Google Cloud Source Repositories

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.

Collaborate easily and securely manage your code on a fully featured, scalable, private Git repository. Extend your Git workflow by connecting to other GCP tools, including Cloud Build, App Engine, Stackdriver, and Cloud Pub/Sub. Get access to fast, indexed powerful code search across all your owned repositories to save time.

Collaboration;Encryption;Access Control;High Availability and Durability;Unlimited Repositories;Easy Access and Integration
Unlimited private Git repositories;Deploy directly from Cloud Source Repositories;Automatically build and test your source code;Versioning and aliasing for serverless requests;Debug in production;Detailed audit logs;
Statistics
Stacks
324
Stacks
91
Followers
826
Followers
160
Votes
193
Votes
0
Pros & Cons
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 fork
No community feedback yet
Integrations
Git
Git
Jenkins
Jenkins
Git
Git
GitLab
GitLab
GitHub
GitHub
Google App Engine
Google App Engine
Bitbucket
Bitbucket
Stackdriver
Stackdriver
Google Cloud Pub/Sub
Google Cloud Pub/Sub

What are some alternatives to AWS CodeCommit, Google Cloud Source Repositories?

GitHub

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

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.

GitLab

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

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

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

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

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

Beanstalk

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

GitBucket

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

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.

Related Comparisons

GitHub
Bitbucket

Bitbucket vs GitHub vs GitLab

GitHub
Bitbucket

AWS CodeCommit vs Bitbucket vs GitHub

Kubernetes
Rancher

Docker Swarm vs Kubernetes vs Rancher

gulp
Grunt

Grunt vs Webpack vs gulp

Graphite
Kibana

Grafana vs Graphite vs Kibana