Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS CodeCommit vs Liquibase comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 14, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS CodeCommit
Ranking in Version Control
5th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Liquibase
Ranking in Version Control
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Version Control category, the mindshare of AWS CodeCommit is 6.7%, down from 7.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Liquibase is 2.4%, up from 1.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Version Control
 

Featured Reviews

Munisaiteja Narravula - PeerSpot reviewer
Efficient integration of code changes with seamless private repository management
AWS CodeCommit is highly user-friendly. It doesn't require any complex authentication, which makes the process seamless. Deployments happen in a straightforward manner once the code is organized correctly in the repository. The platform allows the creation of private repositories, securing and restricting access to our team members only. This ensures that unauthorized users cannot access sensitive files. AWS CodeCommit also integrates well when we use it with Check Point allowing us to implement information in the criteria we need.
Sudheer Kumar Jamjam - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers integration with multiple databases, stable product and reduced our manual intervention
I would recommend using it. To learn Liquibase, one should have some database knowledge. If the person is from a DBA background, they would be able to learn quickly. But if they are from an application or infrastructure role, it's medium complex. Before getting started, you should thoroughly go through the documentation and follow the latest changes deployed by the Liquibase product team. Basically, when using the product, you should be able to understand it and stay updated on the latest releases. Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten. Organizations should have this kind of tool to reduce manual intervention. The one point they could improve on is documentation, which they haven't clarified, and they need to work on that a lot.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable feature of AWS CodeCommit is that it acts as a code repository with code versioning and approval features similar to those found on GitHub."
"AWS CodeCommit is highly user-friendly."
"The solution's most valuable feature is versioning."
"The customer service and support for AWS CodeCommit are excellent."
"AWS CodeCommit is highly user-friendly."
"The solution is quite scalable."
"AWS CodeCommit's user interface is nice, and it's easy for people to pick up."
"It helps us to install our code idea projects."
"They have some nice features around the automation of rule checking. They have a rules engine that checks the SQL code so that you can actually do your edit checks on the validity of the SQL code. If you don't want certain tables to be able to have certain things done to them, you can have it checked for that. It's a very flexible way to kind of do an automated peer review of the SQL code to catch things before you actually try to deploy it."
"It will be useful for teams to automate and reduce manual work."
"The solution is easy to use, and it has very clear documentation."
 

Cons

"Lately, it is turning out to be a little expensive. The market is preferring Azure because it offers resources at a much cheaper price."
"Although CodeCommit's user interface is good, it can be improved when compared to other version controls like GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket."
"There is room for improvement in how AWS CodeCommit handles mass changes, like Fortran, which is designed to make these alterations in a friendly manner across AWS requirements."
"The solution could be more user-friendly and cheaper."
"Migration in and out of CodeCommit should be improved."
"The tool should improve its UI."
"There are some options in Bitbucket that are not available in AWS CodeCommit. For example, code reviewer. We can't add a code reviewer in AWS CodeCommit, and we can't fork the repository online. These are the two things that Bitbucket has, but the solution doesn't have. Also, Jira has a debugging option that AWS CodeCommit doesn't have. Another thing is that Bitbucket charges three dollars per month per user. Compared with AWS CodeCommit, that only charges one dollar per month. So, AWS CodeCommit is cheaper than Bitbucket. But it does not have enough features that Bitbucket has. Additionally, it will be good if you upload one video or documentation on how to use AWS CodeCommit for beginners. That will be more helpful. There you can add more details about pricing. There are not many details about pricing. Bitbucket has a table where they have mentioned everything in detail, like, what features for how much price, how much longer you can use and how many users can use."
"There is room for improvement in Insight Analytics."
"One thing we faced issues with is that Liquibase does not show the exact error, which added to the complexity."
"The pricing is quite high."
"We were not able to delete some of the tables because of a security issue."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
"As for pricing, you can add the table in detail. You can visit Bitbucket or refer to any other tools. There, you can see what is the difference between your pricing and other prices. You have only mentioned it in a single line. Other tools have been mentioned in a table format, like, how many users, premium, normal accounts, and other things."
"AWS CodeCommit is competitively priced against all the other competitors."
"Liquibase is an open-source solution."
"The pricing is fair."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Version Control solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
27%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Insurance Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS CodeCommit?
Lately, it is turning out to be a little expensive. The market is preferring Azure because it offers resources at a much cheaper price. Compared to Azure, AWS is more expensive, and that's the trend.
What needs improvement with AWS CodeCommit?
There is room for improvement in Insight Analytics. A built-in dashboard with advanced analytics, like commit frequencies and pull request trends, could be added. These features would help gain dee...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Liquibase?
Liquibase is an open-source solution. If you are using Liquibase, you need to update its license. I think Liquibase is affordable for our organization.
What needs improvement with Liquibase?
We were not able to delete some of the tables because of a security issue.
What is your primary use case for Liquibase?
I have worked on the Liquibase commands, Liquibase updates, Liquibase storeback, and some basic commands from Liquibase. We were using the Docker image installed from the AWS CI/CD, downloading thi...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

CodeCommit
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Edmunds, Gett, ClicksMob
Nike, JP Morgan Chase, Bancolombia, UPS, Anthem
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS CodeCommit vs. Liquibase and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.