AWS CodeCommit vs GitHub Enterprise

Overview

GitHub Enterprise

Stacks500

Followers627

Votes10

AWS CodeCommit

Stacks324

Followers826

Votes193

AWS CodeCommit vs GitHub Enterprise: What are the differences?

AWS CodeCommit and GitHub Enterprise are popular version control platforms that offer similar functionalities but have key differences.

Code Hosting: AWS CodeCommit is a fully managed, secure, and scalable version control service, while GitHub Enterprise is an on-premises version control solution. CodeCommit is offered as a service in the AWS cloud, making it easily accessible and eliminating the need for infrastructure setup and maintenance. GitHub Enterprise, on the other hand, requires installation and configuration on local servers.
Integration with Other AWS Services: CodeCommit seamlessly integrates with other Amazon Web Services (AWS) services, such as AWS CodeBuild, AWS CodeDeploy, and AWS CodePipeline, providing a complete DevOps solution. It allows for automated deployments and continuous integration workflows within the AWS ecosystem. GitHub Enterprise does not have the same level of integration with AWS services.
Pricing Model: AWS CodeCommit follows the pay-as-you-go pricing model, where users are billed based on the storage, number of repositories, and data transfer. GitHub Enterprise, on the other hand, has a fixed pricing structure that requires a subscription for a specified number of users. This difference in pricing models allows for more flexibility with CodeCommit and can be cost-effective for smaller teams.
Access Control: CodeCommit offers fine-grained access control through AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies, allowing users to manage permissions at a granular level. GitHub Enterprise also provides access control but is primarily based on user roles and teams. CodeCommit's IAM-based access control provides more flexibility and control over repository access.
Scalability and Performance: AWS CodeCommit is built on AWS infrastructure, which ensures scalability and high-performance capabilities. It can handle large code repositories and supports scalability to accommodate growing teams and projects. GitHub Enterprise's scalability and performance may be limited by the capacity of the local servers where it is installed.
Backup and Disaster Recovery: AWS CodeCommit automatically replicates repositories across multiple Availability Zones, providing redundancy and ensuring data availability in the event of a failure. It also allows for easy backup and restoration of repositories. GitHub Enterprise requires manual replication and backup processes to ensure data availability and disaster recovery.

In Summary, AWS CodeCommit offers a fully managed cloud-based version control service with seamless integration with AWS services, flexible pricing, fine-grained access control, scalability, and automatic backup and restoration capabilities. GitHub Enterprise, on the other hand, provides an on-premises version control solution with a fixed pricing structure, role-based access control, and limited scalability and disaster recovery options.

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 GitHub Enterprise, AWS CodeCommit

Eric

DevOps at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Dec 15, 2020

Needs adviceon

Bitbucket

Crucible

Confluence

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?

549k views549k

Comments

Darius

Dec 19, 2020

Review

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.

317k views317k

Comments

Kavita

Dec 15, 2020

Needs adviceon

Bitbucket

Jenkins

Jira

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?

581k views581k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

GitHub Enterprise	AWS CodeCommit
GitHub Enterprise lets developers use the tools they love across the development process with support for popular IDEs, continuous integration tools, and hundreds of third party apps and services.	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.
Compliance and auditing;Hundreds of integrations;Flexible deployment;Centralized permissions;Powerful dashboards;Technical support	Collaboration;Encryption;Access Control;High Availability and Durability;Unlimited Repositories;Easy Access and Integration
Statistics
Stacks 500	Stacks 324
Followers 627	Followers 826
Votes 10	Votes 193
Pros & Cons
Pros 4 Expensive - $$$ 2 Code security 2 CDCI with Github Actions 1 Both Cloud and Enterprise Server Versions available 1 Draft Pull Request Cons 2 $$$	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 fork 2 NO LFS support
Integrations
No integrations available	Git Jenkins

What are some alternatives to GitHub Enterprise, 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.

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.

Related Comparisons

AWS CodeCommit vs GitHub Enterprise: What are the differences?

AWS CodeCommit and GitHub Enterprise are popular version control platforms that offer similar functionalities but have key differences.

Code Hosting: AWS CodeCommit is a fully managed, secure, and scalable version control service, while GitHub Enterprise is an on-premises version control solution. CodeCommit is offered as a service in the AWS cloud, making it easily accessible and eliminating the need for infrastructure setup and maintenance. GitHub Enterprise, on the other hand, requires installation and configuration on local servers.
Integration with Other AWS Services: CodeCommit seamlessly integrates with other Amazon Web Services (AWS) services, such as AWS CodeBuild, AWS CodeDeploy, and AWS CodePipeline, providing a complete DevOps solution. It allows for automated deployments and continuous integration workflows within the AWS ecosystem. GitHub Enterprise does not have the same level of integration with AWS services.
Pricing Model: AWS CodeCommit follows the pay-as-you-go pricing model, where users are billed based on the storage, number of repositories, and data transfer. GitHub Enterprise, on the other hand, has a fixed pricing structure that requires a subscription for a specified number of users. This difference in pricing models allows for more flexibility with CodeCommit and can be cost-effective for smaller teams.
Access Control: CodeCommit offers fine-grained access control through AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies, allowing users to manage permissions at a granular level. GitHub Enterprise also provides access control but is primarily based on user roles and teams. CodeCommit's IAM-based access control provides more flexibility and control over repository access.
Scalability and Performance: AWS CodeCommit is built on AWS infrastructure, which ensures scalability and high-performance capabilities. It can handle large code repositories and supports scalability to accommodate growing teams and projects. GitHub Enterprise's scalability and performance may be limited by the capacity of the local servers where it is installed.
Backup and Disaster Recovery: AWS CodeCommit automatically replicates repositories across multiple Availability Zones, providing redundancy and ensuring data availability in the event of a failure. It also allows for easy backup and restoration of repositories. GitHub Enterprise requires manual replication and backup processes to ensure data availability and disaster recovery.

AWS CodeCommit vs GitHub Enterprise

Overview