Bito vs. Crucible

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

• 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

• 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

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

• 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