We compared Gitlab and Microsoft Azure DevOps based on our user’s reviews in four categories. After reviewing the collected data. you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results : GitLab is the preferred option due to its comprehensive product that eliminates the need for multiple solutions and offers a single platform for various management tasks, including source code, build, test, artifact, and deployment management. The platform also has better integration with other platforms, more cloud-native capabilities, and a lower initial setup cost. However, Microsoft Azure DevOps is particularly useful for agile delivery and project management due to its easy navigation, customization, and integration with other Microsoft tools.
"GitLab integrates well with other platforms."
"I like that it's easy to deploy our services over GitLab. The customer support is also good with a really active community. You have a lot of support that you can get online with your stack. That is probably one of the benefits of using GitLab. It's also really fast."
"I like GitLab's security and SAS tools."
"A user friendly solution."
"We're only using the basic features of GitLab and haven't used any advanced features. The solution works fine, so that's what we like about GitLab. We're party using GitHub and GitLab. We have a GitHub server, while we use GitLab locally or only within our team, and it works okay. We don't have any significant problems with the solution. We also found the straightforward setup, stability, and scalability of GitLab valuable."
"The SaaS setup is impressive, and it has DAST solutioning."
"The most important features of GitLab for us are issue management and all the CI/CD tools. Another aspect that I love about GitLab is the UI."
"We have seen a couple of merge requests or pull requests raised in GitLab. I see the interface, the way it shows the difference between the two source codes, that it is easy for anyone to do the review and then accept the request; the pull request is the valuable feature."
"Fields can be customized and the reporting is good."
"The pricing seems to be reasonable."
"The most valuable feature is that it brings order to our projects, and we know the status of each one at every moment."
"It is easy to use. The shared repository is useful. Everything is in one environment."
"It is a well-integrated product in terms of the development lifecycle."
"In Microsoft Azure DevOps, you have a one shop to get everything."
"It is possible to add third-party extensions to increase the usability of the product."
"The solution is good for everything, including end-to-end planning and its deployment and testing."
"The documentation could be improved to help newcomers better understand things like creating new branches."
"Some of the scripts that we encountered in GitLab were not fully functional and threw up errors."
"GitLab's Windows version is yet not available and having this would be an improvement."
"The tool should include a feature that helps to edit the code directly."
"GitLab could improve the patch repository. It does not have support for Conan patch version regions. Additionally, better support for Kubernetes deployment is needed as part of the package."
"When deploying the solution on cloud and the CI/CD pipeline, we have to define the steps and it becomes confusing."
"I would like to see security increased in the future. A secure environment is very important."
"Expand features to match other tools such as a static code analysis tool so third-party integrations are not required."
"The interface is very bad."
"Azure has not yet advanced to the performance level of the other major competitors and is missing integration with important technologies."
"It should have security features for scanning the code and checking it for vulnerability and security. Currently, I am using other tools for this. It should also have integration with other tools to improve security."
"Some of the queries, the way they're built, need to be looked at. We need better query tools."
"One thing I would note is that it's hard to know what is included or not in the product. Especially when you begin to try and compare it to other solutions. When you go to a site like VersionOne, they tell you Azure DevOps doesn't have this or that, and when you go to Microsoft, it says VersionOne doesn't have this or that. They could do a better job of laying out exactly what is on offer so customers know going in exactly what they'll get."
"They have brought a lot of new collaboration features in the latest version. We haven't used those features, but they should continue to expand it more on the collaboration front so that two developers can look at the code and work at the same time. It will be helpful for working from home."
"In comparison to JIRA, I believe DevOps has very poor reporting and metrics support."
"If they could build up requirement traceability metrics, then it would be great."
GitLab is ranked 2nd in Release Automation with 70 reviews while Microsoft Azure DevOps is ranked 1st in Release Automation with 126 reviews. GitLab is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure DevOps is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure DevOps writes "Allows us to deploy code to production without releasing certain features immediately and agile project management capabilities offer resource-leveling". GitLab is most compared with Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, SonarQube, Tekton and TeamCity, whereas Microsoft Azure DevOps is most compared with Jira, TFS, Rally Software, ServiceNow Strategic Portfolio Management and OpenText ALM / Quality Center. See our GitLab vs. Microsoft Azure DevOps report.
See our list of best Release Automation vendors and best Enterprise Agile Planning Tools vendors.
We monitor all Release Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.