Bitbucket Reviews

I use the solution for my company's customers, for whom I take care of the version controlling of source codes.

The tool offers a limited pipeline structure. In terms of improvements, the tool should provide more pipeline structures. On the security front, Bitbucket doesn't provide much, making it an area where improvements are required. With respect to code review, the tool needs to provide more options and provisions so that it is possible to link and perform code reviews without a lot of hesitations or shortfalls. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement in Bitbucket.

I have experience with Bitbucket for six to seven years. I am a user of the tool. My company also has a partnership with Bitbucket.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Atlassian has an architecture that supports scalability features, especially when you deploy the product on an on-premises model since it can support multi-node functionality.

My company deals majorly with enterprise-sized customers who use the product.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase experience was good.

The implementation is pretty straightforward because there is not much you can do with the Bitbucket since it can be described as more of a repository-oriented tool.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in a week.

Bitbucket is available at a minimal price point. I rate the product price as two on a scale of one to ten, where ten means that it is a very expensive tool.

The product is predominantly used in the IT sector.

Bitbucket's collaboration is based on Git, so anyone can create codes with the same repositories. The collaboration process of Bitbucket is good, but there are a lot of limitations with respect to the functionalities, especially when we look at Bitbucket's competitors like GitHub or GitLab. Bitbucket is not at the level of GitHub or GitLab. Bitbucket is more for entry-level teams who don't want to get into security or the pipeline part of their product. For an entry-level team, Bitbucket is good.

In terms of the CI/CD pipeline, though Bitbucket has a pipeline, it is not so strong. The major advantage of Bitbucket is on the price front since its competitors offer tools at a very high cost. The products from competitors are offered at costs that are five times more than the price of Bitbucket. With Bitbucket, the pricing is minimal, and you get many functionalities.

Code review is not so solid in Bitbucket, so you can do only a limited set of activities inside Bitbucket. The pull requests part in the tool is actually good. I cannot see any standard features available in the tool, but it offers normal functionalities. Bitbucket has a lot of limitations in the reviewing part.

Bitbucket integration streamlines workflows since it has integrated with a lot of CIs. The tool also works with an open DevOps approach, though there are no ready-made or predefined plugins available, which allows you to just plug and integrate with the CI server. You can also go with webhooks or APIs as they give the diversity feature, allowing you to play with multiple products, after which you need not switch between products just for the sake of integrations.

Bitbucket handles large repositories or projects since it has Git LFS, so if we have a large file system, then it seamlessly integrates. The problem comes with the tool's memory-related capabilities since if you go with its premium plan, then it is good, but if not, then on a monthly basis, you need to renew your space, which can be a slight headache for a customer.

For an entry-level team in a company, Bitbucket is a good option. If there are people who want some advanced tool for version controlling of systems with CI/CD integrations, then they need to look at other options.

I rate the tool a seven to eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Bitbucket to store all of our code repositories. It has become the standardized tool for code management across all teams.

The platform integrates with other tools, such as Jenkins, enabling automated workflows for building, testing, and deploying code changes. It triggers the pipeline process, ensuring that builds are generated and deployments are managed efficiently.

The product could be less expensive for small companies.

We have been using Bitbucket for five years.

The product is stable. Being utilized by a multinational company like ours, stability is crucial, and it has consistently delivered on this front. Over the past five years of usage, we have encountered no significant defects or bugs.

We have around 1000 Bitbucket users in our company. On a wider scale, across India, where we have 22,000 employees, Bitbucket adoption is also significant.

The initial setup for Bitbucket was straightforward. The process was similar to deploying GitHub and GitLab, based on Git technology. We have various tools available, such as SourceTree or Visual Studio Code, which can seamlessly integrate with the product. I prefer using Git Bash for command-line operations. However, many others in our team utilize Visual Studio Code, which provides a user-friendly interface for running commands.

In a small-scale company where I previously worked, cost-saving measures led to a transition from GitLab's dedicated servers to GitHub's cloud-based solution. This switch resulted in significant cost savings and demonstrated the impact of cloud technology adoption on budget management. However, my current organization, a larger enterprise with a substantial budget, focuses on reliability and functionality rather than cost alone. Therefore, while Bitbucket may be perceived as costly for smaller companies, larger enterprises like mine prioritize tools like ServiceNow despite their expenses.

While alternatives like GitLab and GitHub were available, our organization remained steadfast in its preference for Bitbucket. Additionally, our team members, particularly those involved in DevOps, CI/CD, and system maintenance, were highly experienced with Bitbucket. Given the critical nature of our work in the banking and insurance sectors, where clients worldwide depend on our products, there was a reluctance to experiment with alternative solutions.

Learning to use Bitbucket, especially for beginners, is quite easy. In my experience spanning over twelve years in the field, most companies rely on Git for version control, and Bitbucket is just one of the platforms built on Git technology. The commands and client tools are the same: Bitbucket, GitHub, or GitLab. This uniformity makes it straightforward for beginners to adopt and use Bitbucket or any Git-based tool without facing significant challenges.

I recommend Bitbucket for version control features. It is a good tool suitable for long-term use. It's straightforward to adapt to, with user-friendly features and a convenient UI. 

I rate it an eight out of ten.

We mainly use Bitbucket as a code repository. The solution provides a nice user interface where we can track every change. Bitbucket uses Git as a binary in the backend, so it's pretty simple for developers and administrators to take care of every commit. Moreover, Bitbucket is easy to integrate with Atlassian tools, like the Jira-to-Bitbucket plugin. We also use the Jira-to-Jenkins plugin and Bitbucket-to-Jenkins plugin. As part of the work solution, when we used Jenkins as CI, it also integrated with Bitbucket and Jira. Any changes are compiled and pushed into the Artifactory or another artifact-containing tool. Each commit that Jenkins compiles has automatically been reflected in Bitbucket. You can take a reference opposite to each commit, like "this is being compiled" and "this belongs to a particular Jira ticket." It's pretty simple to track each change.

Bitbucket has a pull request-based method, similar to Git's merge request feature. To merge specific changes as part of a DLP, for example, where four or five members work on the same branch. The commits themselves are quite challenging. If those five or six developers are working in parallel, there might be a lot of cases where they face conflicts while merging the code in a static target branch. The pull request feature, here, is very important to port the changes in the target branch simultaneously. This feature is very helpful from a developer standpoint.

Bitbucket is only a code repository. In the SDLC, Bitbucket only helps to contain the code without involving CI or CD. It's very challenging for Bitbucket in the competitive world, where other solutions like GitLab provide a CI/CD mechanism within the same service. If I had two options, I would prefer GitLab because it's a code repository with continuous deployment features. For it to survive, it's a compulsion for Bitbucket to work with a CI like Jenkins, and there is a loose coupling between them with lots of chances of failures, along with the low-based change flow from committing the code to posting the production. By contrast, GitLab is a fast-based change approach.

A new feature I'd like to see in Bitbucket would be code merging. If multiple team members are using Bitbucket, Bitbucket needs to improve the visibility of changes for each developer. When we raise a pull request, Bitbucket should provide some additional UI feature that reflects which engines belong to which developers, and that would be pretty easy to incorporate in the main branch.

It's been seven years since I started working with Bitbucket.

I rate Bitbucket's stability an eight out of ten. I sometimes find that Bitbucket is not reachable, and it's not in our scope to check what could be the reason because we have a platform team taking care of maintenance. Whenever we get into that situation, we must escalate it to them.

Scalability is a traditional approach because once we install a Bitbucket instance on any dedicated on-prem server, the scalability depends on how we scale the Bitbucket hosting server. It could be a Linux or Windows operating system, so we must focus on scaling up the hosting system. Horizontal scaling, in that case, is challenging. Vertical scaling is possible.

We have about 4,000 end users working on Bitbucket in my organization.

Technical support is not very fast. Once we raise a request to the Atlassian team, it usually takes more than two days to respond. They need to improve in that area.

Bitbucket is a kind of binary we have installed on our on-prem server, which can also be installed on cloud-based EC2 instances. Installing the binary on the on-prem server is not very difficult, but we need a separate administration team to take care of maintenance activity. Suppose the organization has 400 users on Bitbucket. In that case, we need a dedicated team to take care of administration and maintenance as a role-based kind of thing, taking care of plugin upgrades, such as the Jira-Bitbucket and the Jenkins-Bitbucket plugin. We need a dedicated team to handle these sorts of integration plugins.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten because it is cheaper than solutions like GitLab.

For average IT organizations, depending on the needs and if the development is not very aggressive, Bitbucket is a tool that can match the organization's needs because the load is not much. We have Jenkins as a service, and all the integration is already available, so based on the organization's needs, Bitbucket is quite stable and less expensive.

I rate Bitbucket an eight out of ten.

I'm mainly using Bitbucket as a code repository for storing the configurations and templates of my monitoring tools. We have them stored locally, and Bitbucket manages changes and builds, so we have a means of rolling back if there are any issues. 

There are about 10 to 15 users in the company at the moment. They want to expand usage, but there's still little uptake. It's an old-fashioned, traditional IT  place that they work in.

Bitbucket works fine for what I'm doing. It's slightly different from GitHub, but it's a good tool for storing code. 

Bitbucket's usability and integration with other tools could be improved somewhat. My other issue is that Bitbucket, GitHub, GitLab, and all the other ones use slightly different jargon for the same things. They should come up with a standard language for all these tools.

I have been using Bitbucket off and on for about five or six years.

BitBucket is stable. 

BitBucket seems scalable, but we haven't used it at scale, so I wouldn't know. 

Setting up BitBucket is fairly straightforward. It has its own APIs, and it's easy to access. Everything is in the cloud. 

I believe it's a monthly license subscription, but you get a discount for paying by the year, so I'd recommend that.

I rate BitBucket seven out of 10. If you're considering BitBucket, do your research and make sure it's the product for you. There are several options out there.

We use Bitbucket for managing and merging code versions, as well as for continuous integration when deploying code to different environments. It helps us to identify and resolve conflicts and to track the changes made to the code by different developers.

The most valuable feature of Bitbucket is you can see the differences between the fresh code and the old code before you merge. Additionally, the solution is easy to use and well-integrated.

Bitbucket can improve by integrating a tool to manage conflict code. This would save time.

I have been using Bitbucket for approximately five years.

The solution is stable. I did not find any bugs.

I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The scalability of Bitbucket is not limited, but when there are many users it takes a bit of time. For example, every click that you do is slow sometimes. However, this issue might not have something to do with the number of users using it.

We have approximately 500 users using this solution in my company and it is used daily.

I rate the scalability of Bitbucket a nine out of ten.

I have not used the support.

This is a great tool that can help a lot to manage code between the environment, and merge codes and is highly stable.

I rate Bitbucket a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case is version control, integration with Jenkins for build management, and integration to Jira so that there is traceability to any issues from the build. We also work with code review and pull requests.

The most valuable feature is the bundle itself because we use them all. However, code reviews and the ability to support DevSecOps are very important.

The mandatory move to the cloud model is the biggest complaint. There are some minor things like customization, configuration, pricing, and limitations in general. I think the configuration can be improved because it is getting more complicated and not very well organized.

I have been working with Bitbucket ever since it was released ten years ago.

Bitbucket is definitely stable.

We were using GitHub before switching to Bitbucket. We do not trust corporations, because we do not want to make our private code available to these corporations. We do not want to just put it on a public site and therefore we switched to Bitbucket.

In the initial setup, you definitely need to be a developer or system administrator. I do not think it is for the faint of heart. You have to set up the reverse proxy and the DNS, so it is accessible from the outside world and make sure all the JVM settings are correct. 

We stay within the ten-user limit and it is affordable and we pay around one hundred dollars. However when you increase from ten people to anything higher the price increase to one thousand five hundred. That is unsatisfactory and they should have a gradual price slope.

I would rate Bitbucket a nine out of ten.

I use the solution mainly to control and share code within the team. I also use it to secure my parts and deploy my code. Overall, Bitbucket is for DevOps purposes.

We work on two or three different solutions, and we have some IoT devices that we collect some data from. That is a separate solution we use to identify customer flow and is on-premises. Though there is hardware for the basic part of the solution, we have cloud-based applications that collect data directly from that application.

Besides that, our primary ERP machine, an ERP server, dynamically provides financial operations. It contains everything about us and is cloud-based. Our third team is Power BI, and though it is cloud-based, the core is our data.

We collect data from all three sources for analysis and have a big setup for data computation, integration, and analysis. We use a database on-premises for that. We also use some Azure services, but not as much because we mainly use our database on-premises, and we integrate our cloud solutions directly with that. We have very high-speed Internet, so our customer and employee loyalty and mobile applications are different applications we use, all integrated with that specific database, and it is very smooth. Our primary applications are hosted on the cloud, and our analytical part is hosted on our private cloud.

Bitbucket is feasible and friendly compared to Visual Studio DevOps on the Microsoft platform. I have Visual Studio DevOps, Bitbucket, and Atlassian, and I found Bitbucket enabled more on a technical level because it grants access to those low-level things you can't access in Visual Studio DevOps, where you need to buy a specific part for that and integrate it with OneDrive first. With Bitbucket, you can easily integrate Visual Studio and use different tools. Also, when it comes to costs for the premium version, Bitbucket is lower than that part, and you still get the same level of access.

When users are given access for the first time, they should have some basic setups to help them specify their purposes. For example, when someone selects DevOps, they could get branches and trees created for dev, QN, and production deployment by default. Bitbucket could give access to the user from the front end to click and start working. The three setups mentioned would be very easy for organizations like Bitbucket to offer for free, for the user to create by default and just click and run.

Bitbucket must also incorporate the product with top-tier applications like Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Visual Studio. Other than Microsoft, Bitbucket could integrate with Oracle directly. Bitbucket could have these three foundation servers and Visual Studio at a very minimal cost, which would help businesses get some options. Bitbucket has to work in that market as well because this market has only one or two products already offered by top-tier companies.

I've worked with Bitbucket since 2017 or 2018.

I have not faced downtime because I don't know at what scale Bitbucket has been used. If I scale it to twice or thrice my site, I might face some problems.

When it comes to scalability, there's always a point for improvement, so I rate Bitbucket's scalability a seven out of ten. The solution is technically feasible, but when discussing scalable applications while targeting high-level customers, there is a problem with the customer interface. You don't always have a system admin with technical exposure when scaling up, so Bitbucket needs three setups. That way, when you scale up your customers, they can easily get the part.

We have a maximum of five people using Bitbucket at a time.

We contacted support recently because of some accrued repositories and received timely support.

The initial setup is not very complex on the technical side for us because developers, programmers, and operations people have a good idea of how to set up these things. You just need to know the audience using this type of application. Mainly, the audience would be system admins or developers who are technically enabled, so they don't face many hurdles or problems while working with the application.

I rate the pricing a seven out of ten because it is expensive. We pay about $500 or $600 a year for the Teams server.

I rate Bitbucket an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for source control.

The planning model is good, and so is the suite of applications around it. Bitbucket makes it easy to manage ops, integration, and unified login.

Bitbucket should come with code review pre-integrated, which would be better than integrating another tool into the solution.

The organization I'm working with has worked with the solution for about six months.

I rate Bitbucket's stability an eight out of ten for our use, keeping in mind we just use it for source control.

We have 20 users on Bitbucket. I have seen Bitbucket expand to hundreds of developers across multiple teams, and I didn't find any issues then.

My IT team has contacted customer support for Jira, probably to enable SS4. I didn't hear any complaints from the IT team that the resources were slow. They were able to resolve the issue pretty fast.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We managed the installation and configuration in-house.

I rate Bitbucket's pricing a five out of ten.

Comparing Bitbucket with GitLab, I would have chosen GitLab earlier because of its pricing model, though their new model has gotten a little expensive. Likewise, GitLab is better feature-wise.

If the organization has adopted Atlassian, I will choose BitBucket. Still, if somebody has chosen Visual Studio Online or Azure DevOps as their product management tool for their development activities, GitHub would be a better option.

Most providers provide scalable solutions, so that has not been something I've been concerned about. I'll know how to deal with it if I ever hit a hard limit. Likewise, hosting is not a big challenge. What concerns me is the service's features, whether it's BitBucket or GitHub. Similarly, I would be more concerned with creating the build pipeline, how well it's engineered, and supporting other platforms. For example, having the Mac OS or the iOS build tools available. A building environment is what I look for. And as long as the core repositories are working, scalability is my last concern.

When choosing a service, it's not just about the service alone but what the organization has adopted because that greatly determines what we choose. Otherwise, we would be competing with what the market provides in the future. 90% of future challenges would be because we poorly chose a tool.

I rate Bitbucket a six out of ten.