AWS CodeCommit vs Perforce: What are the differences?
Developers describe AWS CodeCommit as "Fully-managed source control service that makes it easy for companies to host secure and highly scalable private Git 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. On the other hand, Perforce is detailed as "Self-hosted Version Control Software". Visibility, access control, workflow and code management for Git environments. Flexibility of collaborating on the same codebase and code reviews using any combination of Perforce and Git workflows and tools without compromise.
AWS CodeCommit and Perforce can be categorized as "Code Collaboration & Version Control" tools.
"Free private repos" is the top reason why over 39 developers like AWS CodeCommit, while over 2 developers mention "Great for Enterprise level use" as the leading cause for choosing Perforce.
What is AWS CodeCommit?
What is Perforce?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Perforce?
Sign up to add, upvote and see more consMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
The pull requests are only merged by FF what makes all the merges hard to manage. The IAM configuration is very awkward and the unavailability to add git hooks to prevent commits to be made into the server makes this tool not much usable for a software development company.
I use CodeCommit for projects that require a tighter integration with the AWS ecosystem.
Otherwise, my default source control system as a service of choice is: GitHub.