We performed a comparison between GitLab and Spinnaker based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Release Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."GitLab is kind of an image of GitHub, so it gives us the flexibility to monitor our changes in the repos."
"The initial setup of GitLab is pretty simple, with no complications."
"GitLab is being used as a repository for our codebase and it is a one stop DevOps tool we use in our team."
"The most valuable feature of GitLab is its convenience. I am able to trace back most of my changes up to a far distance in time and it helps me to analyze and see the older version of the code."
"CI/CD is very good. The version control system is also good. These are the two features that we use."
"The solution's most valuable feature is that it is compatible with GitHub. The product's integration capabilities are sufficient for our small company of 35 people."
"GitLab's best features are continuous integration and fast deployment."
"I like GitLab's security and SAS tools."
"There is a good community around the product that makes troubleshooting possible."
"The most valuable feature of Spinnaker is the rollback."
"GitLab could consider introducing a code-scanning tool. Purchasing such tools from external markets can incur charges, which might not be favorable. Integrating these features into GitLab would streamline the pipeline and make it more convenient for users."
"Expand features to match other tools such as a static code analysis tool so third-party integrations are not required."
"The user interface could be more user-friendly. We do most of our operations through the website interface but it could be better."
"Perhaps the integration could be better."
"The tool should include a feature that helps to edit the code directly."
"We would like to have easier tutorials. Their tutorials are too technical for a user to understand. They should be more detailed but less technical."
"We are having a few problems integrating with Jira at the moment, which is something that our IT department is investigating."
"It would be better if there weren't any outages. There are occasions where we usually see a lot of outages using GitLab. It happens at least once a week or something like that. Whatever pipelines you're running, to check the logs, you need to have a different set of tools like Argus or something like that. If you have pipelines running on GitLab, you need a separate service deployed to view the logs, which is kind of a pain. If the logs can be used conveniently on GitLab, that would be definitely helpful. I'm not talking about the CI/CD pipelines but the back-end services and microservices deployed over GitLab. To view the logs for those microservices, you need to have separate log viewers, which is kind of a pain."
"Spinnaker's configuration setup is too complicated and should be made easy."
"Log-wise, we need to understand why something has failed so that we can understand and try to fix it the moment the issue is reported. The solution could use more robust monitoring."
GitLab is ranked 2nd in Release Automation with 70 reviews while Spinnaker is ranked 7th in Release Automation with 2 reviews. GitLab is rated 8.6, while Spinnaker is rated 9.6. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Spinnaker writes "Good integrations, a helpful user community, and good reliability". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, SonarQube, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline and Tekton, whereas Spinnaker is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, AWS CodeDeploy and UrbanCode Deploy. See our GitLab vs. Spinnaker report.
See our list of best Release Automation 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.
