Bitbucket Reviews

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.

Actually, I have an E-commerce product on that solution and store it there. I deploy the product for each customer and they use it. I'm trying to use the cloud system as my center for distribution. I use Bitbucket for hosting the core code.

I'm using the private cloud because I don't want to have my source public on the internet. I'm very happy about that solution because it's precisely enough for me and my needs. Being private was very important for me, and working with the product's GUI user interface is a good experience. 

While it is a good and useful product for my application, there are several disadvantages to the system. One thing I have seen is that you can't add some better features to the wiki system. For example, better attachment and document management could be more useful. We actually use another system for our documents because the document management system was not suited for us. Maybe they can improve the wiki side of that product. The issue tracking also can be better than it is now.

The wiki side of the system can use the most enhancement. When I want to use the wiki, I have many problems writing the source code in different code languages. We are creating a web program. Because it is a web project, we want to use, for example, JavaScript and we use CSS. Then we want to use Java for the back-end. When we use different languages, we have a problem deploying them with that system.

Sorting documents is an issue, and also issue tracking over in the system is not very professional. If you compare this product with JIRA it is not very good in these capacities. There is a lot of room for improvement. Another comparison could be made with teamwork.com which is better at these things. We used teamwork for a situation where we needed both better document handling and better issue tracking. We wanted to have something like GitLab with all the features of a project management tool.

Another problem that I had involved issues with CICD (Continuous Integration Continuous Deployment). I could not configure it easily. I did not try to resolve the issue and left it for the future. Maybe it was because of the user interface or maybe because the documentation was not so good, but the CICD pipeline wasn't very easy for us to use. Maybe just adding more helpful documentation for that feature will solve the issue.

The limit on the number of users became a problem for us because we live in a country in the Middle East. The issue of spending more money and having additional costs is a really big concern for us. For example, for being the Turkish leader in the field, what we were able to charge the customer compared to what we are paying for services is not cheap. That makes it difficult to make a decent profit, re-invest and grow.

Other additional features I would like to see can help expand how we work with customers. One example is adding a notebook. There is no notebook in the product at all to write notes for your users and customers to remember details about them and have them available.

Another example would be to add a feature that allows you to integrate and converse with GitLab. Sometimes we need to write some notes for something inside GitLab, but it would be good to have the availability to add from both products and have them integrated. 

If BitBucket had online chat and online help for premium users, it will be best for users who need to get support. Programmers want to focus on the code. For example, if I want to configure something in my pipeline or in a product I am building, I may need to read 30 articles to understand what is happening on the system in order to program it. If I am in a rush and I am a programmer, I don't have enough time for that. So if BitBucket had an online chat system for support to help the developers, that could speed up development and access to support itself.

I can understand these things may not be the primary purpose of the BitBucket solution, but maybe if these things can be added the solution would be more independent, better integrated and would be nearly perfect.

This solution is perfectly stable. We never had a problem with it, and after five years it is still running as we expect. I love this program for that. 

Many software companies are trying to scale up on the cloud. BitBucket should add some features to make some better use of the cloud and other integrations. For example, if you want to migrate your product to AWS (Amazon Web Services), the AWS will try to send the source code to a codecomp system. Maybe you have something that you do not want to migrate from the source to Amazon. It would be nice to have controls for that. When you commit the code to BitBucket it would be good to be able to also commit from BitBucket to use AWS. 

In our company, we had ten proficient programmers working on the project and we have good clients in Turkey. We could scale the program as well as the number of users and our market or in other ways. I think I am confident in that. So the product is scalable in many ways.

The company can improve access to technical support. Some of the documentation was not so good. We did not use it much.

From my point of view, the setup for the Atlassian product was better than other products but had less to offer as a system. I tried to switch to TFS (Team Foundation Server), a Microsoft product, and I couldn't use that because I loved this user interface system in the BitBucket product more than TFS.

The first upload of our project was in 2015. I uploaded that code. It wasn't very hard to use the solution or do the deployment. Some of the configuration is not as easy or as good as it could be. The system has changed, but since the implementation, I have made no changes in three years.

In a way, I did evaluate other options but it was after I was already working with BitBucket. I tried to use TFS and GitLab, but I couldn't add my existing support to their systems. I loved this support system that I had with BitBucket — the system was very good. But looked at other solutions because I wanted some other features that these other products claimed to have, like issue tracking and a better wiki. These were things which I couldn't get directly in the BitBucket service. But I had gotten used to the excellent GUI in BitBucket and thought it was almost perfect. There were some things missing but the solution was perfectly enough for us. I decided there was no need to change to TFS or the GIT system after the comparison.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as an eight. I love this product, so actually eight may actually not be good enough for the rating. On the other hand, there is a lot that could be incorporated or improved.

I use Bitbucket for plugins and Active Directory integration. It helps me onboard users for an automation suit. I also use it to check codes and generate reports on a daily basis. 

The tool's automation helped because we onboarded a lot of projects and teams into Bitbucket. The product's automation helped us complete activities in two days which previously used to take around two weeks to complete. We have completely automated processes that were earlier manual. It has good integration with Jira and Jenkins. 

Bitbucket should integrate a static code analyzer. 

I have been working with the product for two years. 

I would rate Bitbucket's stability an eight out of ten. 

My company has less than five users for the product. We use it daily. 

My interaction with the customer support team is good. 

Positive

I would rate Bitbucket's setup an eight out of ten since we had a lot of documentation available. We completed the tool's deployment over three to four months. We had a small team of two to four guys to help us with the deployment. One person is enough to handle the product's maintenance. 

We didn't rely on any third-party to complete the tool's deployment. 

Bitbucket is user-friendly and easy to configure. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

Bitbucket is the factor standard for development nowadays.

Git is Bitbucket's most valuable feature.

The module component needs improvement. 

I have been using Bitbucket for several years. 

Bitbucket is highly stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. We currently have 35 users. Bitbucket is extensively used.

I have previously used ClearCase and another server controller.

Bitbucket's initial setup is easy. 

A full licensing cost is paid for Bitbucket. 

I recommend Bitbucket to others. I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

We are currently using Bitbucket mainly for version control. We migrated from GitLab to Bitbucket for better performance and CI/CD deployment processes. Bitbucket is very secure and easy to handle compared to GitLab. Most of the scripting is used for migration purposes and creating new repositories.

The most valuable features are the scripts used for migration purposes and to create new repository releases. The branching model in Bitbucket is also a significant aspect, though at present, we primarily use email for code verification and validation rather than a repository model.

In Bitbucket, manual processes are needed to handle changes between repositories. Automation for this process would be beneficial. We need a script that can automatically integrate specified changes at certain times without manual intervention. 

Additionally, an easier way to write automation scripts could significantly reduce the amount of scripting required.

I have been working with Bitbucket for one year.

Stability has some glitches and bugs. I would rate stability as seven out of ten.

Scalability involves vertical or horizontal expansion, and adjustments need to be made based on requirements. Optimizing scripts will make scalability easier.

I like communicating with the Bitbucket team and would rate their technical support as seven out of ten for their quality of service.

Neutral

We previously used GitLab. We faced migration challenges with GitLab's pipeline, which led us to switch to Bitbucket for its smoother migration process.

The initial setup was simple and easy to manage.

The setup was handled by our infrastructure team without the need for third-party consultants or integrators.

Pricing is not based on low cost. It's based on the quality and satisfaction of the services provided. We are not comparing Bitbucket's pricing with GitLab.

We previously used GitLab.

I would recommend Bitbucket to others because we are not experiencing any significant issues currently.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is for change management more specifically software development. 

The most valuable thing we have found is the workloads are good in Jira and we are able to control the access.

I would like to see the security logs option on the tool directly. The current way to work with security logs is through an email protocol.

I have been using Bitbucket for the past year and a half.

The stability is good and we have not had any issues.

Bitbucket is scalable and we have seventy-five to ninety users.

The technical support that we have received has been very good.

Positive

I have been working with Github and the organization decided to go with Bitbucket.

We used in-house support with Bitbucket.

GitLab was the other option and I have not worked with it. I do not have a personal preference between GitHub and Bitbucket.

I would rate Bitbucket a nine out of ten.