Assembla vs. Crucible

Assembla works well when you are working with multiple groups or entities. We dealt with different time zones, different levels of involvement with the projects, etc so this allows for us to have responses back in a quicker fashion. It also helps us clue in the appropriate people and rely less on following multiple email chains

Incentivized

Crucible is well suited for situations where development teams follow a branch-based merge process, where new features or automation stories are introduced. It allows more seasoned team members to check newer team members' code to ensure standards are followed. It is probably less appropriate for smaller development teams or smaller projects, where code reviews can be less formal.

Incentivized

• Assembla assists in the workload balancing of our programmers.
• We are able to use Assembla to manage sprints and sprint planning in our agile format.

Incentivized

• Supports all major source control systems such as SVN and Git.
• Integration with Jira, Bamboo, Bitbucket, to have a complete end to end development experience.
• Easy to use UI/UX for reviewing code changes amongst different team members.

Incentivized

• The ability to export the tasks or run metrics on them.
• Mobile ability.

Incentivized

• Crucible notifications of changes or updates to the code review are delayed as well as loading more source code is slow.
• Crucible is formatting could use improvements for viewing customization features. For instance, allowing the user to create a new tab per file to be reviewed would be nice to have.

Incentivized

Good support overall being an Atlassian product, with options including free/paid official support and community provided help.

Incentivized

We selected Assembla because the ticket functionality worked well with our agile planning format that we use company wide.

Incentivized

Crucible was first on the market and the price is inexpensive. Crucible integrates with Jira Software and Atlassian Fisheye, providing the ability to track defects efficiently. SonarQube compares code to 'best standards' but not 'internal standards' and does not integrate to issue tracking. GitHub offers effective peer review, and has some integration with GitHub issues but costs more.

Incentivized

• We were able to spend less time tracking down the status of projects.
• We could become more self-sufficient on reviewing prior resolutions to help with current problems.
• Tasks were responded to quickly because we did not have to email one person, wait for an out of office email and then try someone else. Our task got assigned to the next available person.

Incentivized

• It has had a large ROI for our team, as it has helped us find issues sooner than we would have had we not reviewed things properly.

Incentivized