Bitbucket is a Git repository and code collaboration platform, featuring automated testing and code deployment. Bitbucket Cloud Premium provides AI-powered development, more granular access controls, and enforced code quality, and Bitbucket Data Center provides a self-hosted option.
$0
Git
Score 10.0 out of 10
N/A
N/A
N/A
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
N/A
OpenShift is Red Hat's Cloud Computing Platform as a Service (PaaS) offering. OpenShift is an application platform in the cloud where application developers and teams can build, test, deploy, and run their applications.
Bitbucket is very similar to Gitlab, so none of them are better. If you need similar products and great integrations then Bitbucket with Jira and Confluence from Atlassian is a great choice for a medium size company. For startups I can recommend Gitlab or Bitbucket, because of …
I have used Gitblit and GitHub apart from bitbucket. The only thing bitbucket lacks is the ability to create issues against commits like GitHub issues and a similar feature in Gitblit.
I have also used Gitlab and GitHub. There are pros and cons to using each version control system. While Gitlab has a much better interface and is easier to use, it has fewer features and integrations than BitBucket. GitHub is king, but costs money for private repositories. …
Using Bitbucket, GitHub, AccuRev, and svn over my dev career, I like Bitbucket the most. It's nice web UI and integration with JIRA and Sourcetree make it my favorite SCM solution.
Our organization previously used GitHub as our VCS host and the move to Bitbucket has been very smooth and without any hassles, our team really enjoys the simple and easy to use UI over GitHub which allows for interactive code reviewing, the code search engine is also more …
BitBucket is the most full featured hosted service I've found that includes free private repositories. GitHub is as good, perhaps better in many ways, but charges for private repositories. Beanstalk has decent deployment tools built in which other services generally do not …
GitHub has a huge community to support, so, beside the price, is the best tool I've used as a git server. Gitlab is very similar to BitBucket, and for a free version as less limitations. Also is cheaper for companies, but doesn't have a smooth integration with JIRA. Also has a …
I haven't really researched a whole lot with GitHub or SourceForge. I know there are a lot of people that use GitHub and it has kind of become a bit part of the industry. Whenever i have used GitHub to submit pull requests it has also seemed pretty easy to do, but I haven't …
Naturally, Bitbucket will be compared to GitHub, that has reached a tremendous importance in the open source software industry. Overall, Bitbucket comes with similar set of features as GitHub. Bitbucket brought a good integration with other Atlassian products (especially Conflue…
Bitbucket provides a better price compared to the others as well as private repositories for people who do not want everything they do to be completely public and accessible for all to see.
Drastically simpler both in pricing and ease of use than the competition. For only $10/month your team has unlimited private repos! That is an outright bargain! If you are a small team that doesn't require all of the advanced services that come with larger infrastructure and …
Front-End Web Developer, Office of Mediated Education
Chose Git
The two main alternatives to Git that I know about are Mercurial and Subversion. I've never used either one, but I know a bit about Subversion. From what I remember, Subversion requires a server. I don't anyone using any other source control other than Git, it seems to have …
It's easy to use and stable. These are the two strengths I see in Git. It does not need a lot of time to learn, but you still need to learn it. It has high stability. Bugs are not often to see in Git, and the community support is wonderful. With the help of GitHub, you can …
Git is the best Source Control Management Tool I've used. Every company, team, and project I've worked on professionally either used Git 100%, or was moving to Git, away from the alternatives like SVN. Git has all the features necessary, as well as a very large community of …
After using Subversion previously for a number of years, Git comes across as the new and improved source control approach. Git seems very suited to working with Agile:- branches can be created easily, allowing multiple developers to switch to them quickly, and having local …
I found OpenShift and IBM Bluemix to be very similar, however in terms of our use case, we were not using these tools to create a production ready environment, these were to be able to create dev environments which could be torn down and spun up again quickly to give maximum …
Redhat OpenShift has been around for quite a while as I remember. I have found their public cloud to be easy to use and I haven't had to look at any other product. I have checked out Heroku but I am happy with OpenShift.
Cloud Foundry is open-source PaaS, started by VMware and spun out with other VMware-owned open-source code into EMC and VMware's Pivotal Software subsidiary. The Cloud Controller component is responsible for all management tasks. Being the main end point for the Cloud Foundry …
OpenShift is the first PaaS provider that I have used directly. However, if you use more traditional providers and pay extremely high monthly fees, I believe OpenShift should be given a chance to compete.
As a team we need to push code into the repo on daily basis, Bitbucket has proven that is a reliable and secure server to save and get the code available in no time. The administration part is really easy and there's an extra tool for every developer profile either if you want to use the console or a GUI like Sourcetree.
GIT is good to be used for faster and high availability operations during code release cycle. Git provides a complete replica of the repository on the developer's local system which is why every developer will have complete repository available for quick access on his system and they can merge the specific branches that they have worked on back to the centralized repository. The limitations with GIT are seen when checking in large files.
Red Hat OpenShift, despite its complexity and overhead, remains the most complete and enterprise-ready Kubernetes platform available. It excels in research projects like ours, where we need robust CI/CD, GPU scheduling, and tight integration with tools like Jupyter, OpenDataHub, and Quiskit. Its security, scalability, and operator ecosystem make it ideal for experimental and production-grade AI workloads. However, for simpler general hosting tasks—such as serving static websites or lightweight backend services—we find traditional VMs, Docker, or LXD more practical and resource-efficient. Red Hat OpenShift shines in complex, container-native workflows, but can be overkill for basic infrastructure needs.
Very easy to integrate with other DevOps tools like Jenkins and with project/workflow management tools like JIRA.
Very efficient in managing security and compliance standards for code, especially during pull requests, merge requests, branching, etc.
Very robust in performance, especially the cloud and datacenter versions hardly hit any performance issues and supports more than 2000+ developers in my company.
We had a few microservices that dealt with notifications and alerts. We used OpenShift to deploy these microservices, which handle and deliver notifications using publish-subscribe models.
We had to expose an API to consumers via MTLS, which was implemented using Server secret integration in OpenShift. We were then able to deploy the APIs on OpenShift with API security.
We integrated Splunk with OpenShift to view the logs of our applications and gain real-time insights into usage, as well as provide high availability.
I wouldn't necessarily say there is look everyday technology transform. I can see a trend wherein Red Hat OpenShift is adopting all the new technology trends and helping their customers align with their priorities and the emerging technology trends. I wouldn't call out various scope for development every day. There is scope for development. It is all how the organizations adopt it and how they deliver it to their customers. I don't want to call out there is scope for development. It's happening. It is a never ending process.
At the moment, I don't have anything to call out. We are experiencing Red Hat OpenShift and we can see every day they're coming up with new features as and when they come up with new features, we want to experience it more and more. We are looking for opportunities wherein this can be leveraged to help our users and partners.
All products have room for improvement. The system improves over time with better and better integrations and I look forward to even more features without paying extra! The system has increased transparency across my organization and with this transparency comes increased throughput on projects. I don't think I can go back to any other system and we are definitely married to this product.
Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.
OpenShift is really easy of use through its management console. OpenShift gives a very large flexibility through many inbuilt functionalities, all gathered in the same place (it's a very convenient tool to learn DevOps technics hands on) OpenShift is an ideal integrated development / deployment platform for containers
The architecture of Bitbucket makes it more easily scalable than other source code management repositories. Also, administration and maintaining the instance is very easy. It integrates with JIRA and other CI/CD applications which makes it more useful to reduce the efforts. It supports multiple plugins and those bring a lot of extra functionality. It increases the overall efficiency and usefulness of Bitbucket.
The virtualization part takes some getting used to it you are coming from a more traditional hypervisor. Customization options are not intuitive to these users. The process should be more clear. Perhaps a guide to Openshift Virtualization for users of RHV, VMware, etc. would ease this transition into the new platform
Redhat openshift is generally reliable and available platform, it ensures high availability for most the situations. in fact the product where we put openshift in a box, we ensure that the availability is also happening at node and network level and also at storage level, so some of the factors that are outside of Openshift realm are also working in HA manner.
Overall, this platform is beneficial. The only downsides we have encountered have been with pods that occasionally hang. This results in resources being dedicated to dead or zombie pods. Over time, these wasted resources occasionally cause us issues, and we have had difficulty monitoring these pods. However, this issue does not overshadow the benefits we get from Openshift.
The customer support provided by Atlassian (Bitbucket's parent company that also makes Jira, Confluence, etc.) is very helpful. They seem to be very concerned about any issues reported with their products and even just questions about functionality. They are constantly improving the products with new features in nearly every release. Plus they have a plethora of online documentation to reference.
I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.
Every time we need to get support all the Red Hat team move forward looking to solve the problem. Sometimes this was not easy and requires the scalation to product team, and we always get a response. Most of the minor issues were solved with the information from access.redhat.com
I was not involved in the in person training, so i can not answer this question, but the team in my org worked directly with Openshift and able to get the in person training done easily, i did not hear problem or complain in this space, so i hope things happen seamlessly without any issue.
We went thru the training material on RH webesite, i think its very descriptive and the handson lab sesssions are very useful. It would be good to create more short duration videos covering one single aspect of openshift, this wll keep the interest and also it breaks down the complexity to reasonable chunks.
For the features we were looking at, Bitbucket, GitHub and GitLab were all at par and were in a similar price range. We found that GitHub was the most full featured should we need to scale very quickly. GitLab was at par with GitHub for our future needs, but GitHub was a more familiar tool compared to GitLab. Bitbucket won out because of its close integration with Jira and being in the Atlassian family. It was also cheaper than GitHub. As we started with Jira, Bitbucket addition became a natural next step for us. We really liked Bitbucket and stayed with it but we do know we have great options in the form of GitHub and GitLab should we need to scale fast.
I've used both Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different. The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (behind a VPN, intranet - etc), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it. With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it. Another thing for consideration is that Git tracks content rather than files. Branches are lightweight and merging is easy, and I mean really easy. It's distributed, basically every repository is a branch. It's much easier to develop concurrently and collaboratively than with Subversion, in my opinion. It also makes offline development possible. It doesn't impose any workflow, as seen on the above linked website, there are many workflows possible with Git. A Subversion-style workflow is easily mimicked.
The Tanzu Platform seemed overly complicated, and the frequent changes to the portfolio as well as the messaging made us uneasy. We also decided it would not be wise to tie our application platform to a specific infrastructure provider, as Tanzu cannot be deployed on anything other than vSphere. SUSE Rancher seemed good overall, but ultimately felt closer to a DIY approach versus the comprehensive package that Red Hat OpenShift provides.
It's easy to understand what are being billed and what's included in each type of subscription. Same with the support (Std or Premium) you know exactly what to expect when you need to use it. The "core" unit approach on the subscription made really simple to scale and carry the workloads from one site to another.
This is a great platform to deployment container applications designed for multiple use cases. Its reasonably scalable platform, that can host multiple instances of applications, which can seamlessly handle the node and pod failure, if they are configured properly. There should be some scalability best practices guide would be very useful
Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability.
Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production.
Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases.
All of the above. Red Hat OpenShift going into a developer-type setting can be stood up very quickly. There's a very short period to have developers onboard to it and they're able to become productive much faster than a grow your own type solution.
