GitLab Reviews

GitLab is a solution for source code management, container registry, pipelines, testing, and deployment.

The problem with Git is that it's a solution for managing your source code history. But with Git, you can edit the history, which is not ideal.

Another issue is the pricing model of GitLab. 

I have been using GitLab for more than a year. I am using the latest version. 

It is a stable solution. I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. I would scalability rate it a ten out of ten. 

I used GitHub. GitHub did not have a container registry or testing, and it is owned by Microsoft, which raises concerns about ethics. All my decisions are based on ethics. 

The initial setup is reasonably okay. Moreover, it's already in the cloud, so I didn't need to deploy it. 

There is no deployment or maintenance staff required. 

The pricing is a bit high. I'm still on the free plan, but if I wanted to buy it, the pricing would be a bit high. There are not any additional costs associated with the standard license.

GitLab is a good solution. Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. I would say it's better than GitHub.

We have our CI/CD pipelines set up in GitLab. It is our code base. 

The solution makes the CI/CD pipelines easy to execute. 

The tool should include a feature that helps to edit the code directly. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

I haven't reached out to them yet. 

GitLab's deployment is easy. 

GitLab is cheap. 

I use GitLab for some of my CyberArk scripting work.

GitLab's scoop is like a lifesaver. It's very crucial for us in our company to use some of those scripts from GitLab, either for health checks or building new connectors is very important for us, and at times, with GitLab, you don't even need to build the connectors.

Some of the scripts that we encountered in GitLab were not fully functional and threw up errors. The aforementioned area of the solution needs improvement.

In the future, I would like to see GitLab providing more oversight over the coding part.

I have been using GitLab for a couple of years. I use the solution's latest version.

It is a stable solution and seems to be a well-tested product with no issues. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. There are a lot of users on GitLab, so it is a highly scalable product. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

GitLab has only two users, including myself, in our company.

We don't have plans in our company to increase the number of users in future.

The solution's technical support is pretty good. If you go on Stack Overflow platform, you can find technical support there. The product's technical team is knowledgeable, responds quickly, and is customer friendly.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup of GitLab is pretty simple, with no complications.

The deployment process took less than an hour, which means it can be done in around 45 minutes.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud or on-premises version by installing the EXE file.

Only one junior engineer is required for deployment and maintenance.

The deployment phase can be done by yourself, in-house.

The ROI has been good since we have had no issues so far.

My company uses the free version of GitLab, which is GitLab Community Edition. There is a licensed version also available for GitLab.

I would tell those planning to use the solution to try developing their own scripts in GitLab and then try to download them from the repository there. You build your knowledge while helping others as well.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

Our company uses the solution as a repository manager for our best code, to set up CI/CD pipelines, and to build projects and get architects. We build code and generate artifacts that we push to UrbanCode for deployment. 

For one use case, we created an entire CI/CD pipeline that deploys code to the artifact and Target Server. This deployment was our first using the solution and included a lot of scripting. The customer has 250 current users that includes maintenance, owners, and developers.

Eventually, we plan to use the solution for all deployments. 

The user interface is really good so that helps with huge teams who need to collaborate. 

The solution is great for SCM, depository management, building, and CI/CD.

The solution does not have many built-in functions or variables so scripting is required and that is a drawback. For example, it would be nice to have a button on the interface for setting up environments in meta folders. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. Performance comes down slightly when multiple pipelines for a complex project are triggered at once. I rate performance a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution on-premises so do not scale in the way others do on the cloud. 

Technical support is very quick. I raised two tickets and and they followed up regularly which was great. 

Our company currently uses UrbanCode for deployments. Eventually, we want to conduct all deployments in the solution. 

The setup is straightforward so I rate it an eight out of ten. 

Our company includes a four-person deployment team who implements the solution for customers. 

Our internal team handles maintenance of our GitLab server. Every month, we download, install, and publish patches or upgrades to our community. 

The solution is based on a licensing model that includes technical support and is paid annually. Our company currently has between 430 to 480 licenses. 

The solution is newer to the market so other tools with longevity such as Jenkins are more popular. The solution is slowly emerging as its potential as a complete CI/CD setup becomes known. 

UrbanCode is specifically designed as a deployment tool and dominates because of its efficiencies. The user interface has built-in functionality for creating multiple environments, creating approval processes, and downloading artifacts. Conversely, to perform these same functions in the solution you must script the configuration file. 

Java includes Deployment Managers and agent pools for deploying to a Target Server. The solution might not be good for deployments because there isn't enough flexibility to create them quickly. We can script, but it is easier to click buttons for deployment functionality. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution for on-premises repository management

CI/CD is valuable for me. The product also has a monitoring feature connected to Grafana. It helps with alerts. We are using the free GitLab Community Edition. It has a lot of great features.

The documentation is confusing. Sometimes, it is incomplete or has incorrect information. I have informed the vendor about it. Some features in the GitLab Community Edition are not available to us.

I have been using the solution for nine months. My organization has been using it for around two years. We are using the latest version of the solution.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten. We never faced any downtime.

I rate the scalability of GitLab Community Edition a seven or eight out of ten. The product could improve the scalability of GitLab Community Edition. Around 60 people are using the product in our organization.

Their support is good. 

The initial setup is easier for someone who knows Linux and has been working as a system administrator. We need to have experience to deploy the solution. It takes around three to four hours to deploy the solution.

We are using the open-source version, anyone can download it.

I am my company’s GitLab administrator. Many features we need are available in Enterprise Edition. If we say that we do not have enough features in GitLab Community Edition, GitLab might just ask us to upgrade to Enterprise Edition. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We are using this solution for DevOps adoption primarily.

The best part of the solution is it's a single platform, and this platform can help you do your required management, your source code management, your build management, your test management, artifact management, deployment management, et cetera. If this solution was not there, you'd have to put three or four different products together to do all the activities. With this, we are using one single product, including security. Everything is happening on a single platform. It is lean and easy management with no complexities and no integration issues. This one platform is able to do everything for us.

The solution has an established roadmap that lays out its plans for upgrades over the next two to three years. 

The release schedules are quite clear. Even if I'm expecting some improvement, the improvement release cycles are already there in place. So even if I say I want some improvement, they will say it is already planned in the first quarter, second quarter, or third quarter. That said, most everything is quite improved already, and they're improving even further still. 

We have been using the solution for a year. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We are using an on-premises deployment, and on-prem will always have challenges with scalability. On-premises infrastructure never has elasticity since everything is fixed. If I have 500 servers, I have only 500. I cannot grow them to a thousand in a minute. My storage is going to be limited. 

Our users are not more than 500 users. So for us, the scaling we have fits. 

I myself being a DevOps consultant, have seen deployments for 2000 or even 3000 users also.In that sense, there is an issue of scalability. The infrastructure we have means the solution will be quite scalable for the next three years. 

We have tried out a lot of other products, including Azure DevOps. We have tried a lot of open-source products as well. The major benefit we found in this solution is it's a single platform doing everything. If I go to Azure DevOps, Microsoft would also say it's a single platform, yet it's not a single platform. They have integrated themselves with multiple toolchain vendors, and it's a Microsoft wrapper on the top. When it comes to Microsoft is a resource-hungry solution. You require a lot of resources to run on Microsoft.

The deployment is fairly easy. The people who are doing the deployment should be very clear about the fundamentals, like any adoption, like when you're doing a DevOps adoption and moving towards automation. 

The most important part is you really have to work on education. On the one hand, you have the investment, however, the investment will never show you how to use it. Once the adoption grows in the organization, you'll be able to see the returns and the benefits that are there. 

We are currently in a phase of adoption across the organization. It's going on very well, and deployment is fairly easy. I didn't find much difficulty when doing deployment and getting people to work with it. Anybody who works on DevOps toolchain implementation can even go and implement GitLab also. It's that easy.

We have a new adoption going on and within a year we'll begin to see a return on investment.

GitLab is a paid version, Ultimate GitLab. It has three editions: one is a free edition or a community edition. They have a premium edition, which is a paid version. Then, they have the ultimate edition, which is also a paid edition. 

There are no hidden costs or fees associated with the product. I pay one price and get everything I need. 

We are using GitLab Ultimate.

As a DevOps consultant, I would like to give advice some. From 2008 or 2009, when the global market started adopting DevOps, until the year 2019 or 2020, we always had a problem. If I wanted to have DevOps automation in the organization, we would require four or five tools minimum. Since GitLab in 2020 emerged as a single platform, always advise people who are implementing DevOps to always move towards a single platform. 

The reason is that you save a lot of money on your infrastructure costs. You also save a lot of money on the resources which are required to maintain all infrastructure for a single platform. And if you maintain a single platform, you'll require an optimized resource tool to maintain that.

If you're going to have multiple tools in your infrastructure for DevOps, you require many people to maintain that. In the end, everything boils down to cost. Cost is definitely high if you need to maintain infrastructure with multiple toolchains. So my advice is always, when we talk about agility, to be lean. So when you bring in GitLab, you get a lean infrastructure; you get a simple and non-complex infrastructure. You have minimum compliance issues and minimum regulatory issues. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I primarily use it for verifying some things. We're using it as a repository. It's used for software code. 

I didn't have an option when coming to this solution. It was imposed on me. That said, I've had no problems so far. 

The solution is stable.

The scalability is good.

My understanding is that the setup is straightforward. 

I'm not sure of the complete capabilities of the tool as I don't use it that much. Perhaps the integration could be better. 

I've used the solution for one year, however, not so regularly.

I have not heard of any stability complaints. My understanding is that the product is reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It won't crash or freeze. 

We have about 100 people using the solution in our organization. 

For our purposes, we find the solution scales well. It's okay. We've never had any issues. 

We previously used IBM CLM and RTC.

I did not directly handle the initial setup. There is an IT team, which is responsible for all the installation and setup tasks. I'm not sure how many people were involved in the deployment and maintenance of the solution. 

Our IT team set the solution up.

I haven't looked into if we have noticed an ROI or not. 

I can't speak to the exact cost or licensing structure. I don't deal with this aspect of the product. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it eight out of ten. 

The primary use of the solution is for LCDs and as a repository.

In GitLab, the most valuable feature is using information with a repository and using a containerized approach. You can use containers to create different jobs. 

The dashboard and interface make it easy to use.

GitLab doesn't have AWS integration. It would be better to have integration with other container management environments beyond Kubernetes. It has very good integration with Kubernetes, but it doesn't have good integration with, for example, AWS, ETS, etc.

The solution is stable. So far, we have not experienced any problems or bugs.

Coming from container architecture makes it very scalable. Every job you create will be created with its own container so it doesn't create laws on the existing running jobs on other containers. It expands itself by usage.

As the solution is open-source, there isn't any particular support subscription. There's a community, which is usually quite fast but it's not dedicated to any particular company. It's not certain that you will get the support you need by a certain time. You have to figure it out by yourself. It's quite easy to do so, however. If you have people on your team who have knowledge about containerized technologies, then it's actually not a problem.

We previously used Jenkins. Jenkins management is more complicated than GitLab. GitLab is easier to manage. Because of the simplicity of the product, GitLab is better than Jenkins.

The solution was very straightforward to implement.

Another team did the implementation, but if you use public cloud software, you don't need to deploy anything.

The solution is open-source.

We use the public cloud deployment model.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.