Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
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.
We are using a Bitbucket server, and due to migration efforts and new Atlassian community license changes, we need to move to a new self-hosted solution. The new data-center license for Atlassian, available in February, will be community provisioned (free). Along with that community license, other technologies will be coming with it (Crucible, Confluence, and Jira). Is there value in a paid-for license to get the GitHub Enterprise? Are the tools that come with it worth the cost?
I know it is about $20 per 10 seats, and we have about 300 users. Have other convertees to Microsoft's tools found it easy to do a migration? Is the toolset that much more beneficial to the free suite that one can get from Atlassian?
So far, free seems to be the winner, and the familiarization with Atlassian implementation and maintenance is understood. Going to GitHub, are there any distinct challenges to be found or any perks to be attained?
These are pretty competitive, and to recommend one over the other would require understanding your usage. Also, what other tools you use: for instance, what do you use for Issue-tracking, or for build pipelines. In your case, since you are already using Bitbucket, the question would be: do you have any current pain-points? And, on the other hand, do you already use Atlassian's JIRA, where you'd benefit from the tight integration? So, though I would not recommend one over the other just in general,. But, if Bitbucket fulfills your current use-cases, then there seems to be little motivation to move.
Hi, I need advice. In my project, we are using Bitbucket hosted on-prem, Jenkins, and Jira. Also, we have restrictions not to use any plugins for code review, code quality, code security, etc., with bitbucket. Now we want to migrate to AWS CodeCommit, which would mean that we can use, let's say, Amazon CodeGuru for code reviews and move to AWS CodeBuild and AWS CodePipeline for build automation in the future rather than using Jenkins.
Now I want advice on below.
- Is it a good idea to migrate from Bitbucket to AWS Codecommit?
- If we want to integrate Jira with AWS Codecommit, then how can we do this? If a developer makes any changes in Jira, then a build should be triggered automatically in AWS and create a Jira ticket if the build fails. So, how can we achieve this?
Hi Kavita. It would be useful to explain in a bit more detail the integration to Jira you would like to achieve. Some of the Jira plugins will work with any git repository, regardless if its github/bitbucket/gitlab.
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.
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?
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.
Pros of AWS CodeCommit
- Free private repos44
- IAM integration26
- Pay-As-You-Go Pricing24
- Amazon feels the most Secure20
- Repo data encrypted at rest19
- I can make repository by myself if I have AWS account11
- Faster deployments when using other AWS services11
- AWS CodePipeline integration8
- Codebuild integration6
- Does not support web hooks yet! :(6
- Cost Effective4
- No Git LFS! Dealbreaker for me2
- Elastic Beanstalk Integration2
- Integrated with AWS Ecosystem2
- Integration via SQS/SNS for events (replaces webhooks)1
- IAM1
- Issue tracker1
- Available in Ireland (Dublin) region1
- CodeDeploy Integration1
- CodeCommit Trigger for an AWS Lambda Function1
- Open source friendly1
- Only US Region1
- Ui0
Pros of Bitbucket
- Free private repos905
- Simple setup397
- Nice ui and tools349
- Unlimited private repositories342
- Affordable git hosting240
- Integrates with many apis and services123
- Reliable uptime119
- Nice gui87
- Pull requests and code reviews85
- Very customisable58
- Mercurial repositories16
- SourceTree integration14
- JIRA integration12
- Track every commit to an issue in JIRA10
- Deployment hooks8
- Best free alternative to Github8
- Automatically share repositories with all your teammates7
- Source Code Insight7
- Compatible with Mac and Windows7
- Price6
- Login with Google5
- Create a wiki5
- Approve pull request button5
- Customizable pipelines4
- #2 Atlassian Product after JIRA4
- Unlimited Private Repos at no cost3
- Also supports Mercurial3
- Continuous Integration and Delivery3
- Mercurial Support2
- Multilingual interface2
- Teamcity2
- Open source friendly2
- Issues tracker2
- IAM2
- Academic license program2
- IAM integration2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of AWS CodeCommit
- UI sucks12
- SLOW4
- No Issue Tracker3
- Bad diffing/no blame2
- NO LFS support2
- No fork2
- No webhooks2
- Can't download file from UI1
- Only time based triggers1
- Accident-prone UI0
Cons of Bitbucket
- Not much community activity19
- Difficult to review prs because of confusing ui17
- Quite buggy15
- Managed by enterprise Java company10
- CI tool is not free of charge8
- Complexity with rights management7
- Only 5 collaborators for private repos6
- Slow performance4
- No AWS Codepipelines integration2
- No more Mercurial repositories1
- No server side git-hook support1
Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions
What is AWS CodeCommit?
What is Bitbucket?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
What companies use AWS CodeCommit?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with AWS CodeCommit?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
Blog Posts
+4
+32+34