CodeStream vs. Crucible

CodeStream is well suited for all developments where two or more people are developing something and I feel there's rarely any project which is been developed and maintained by a single developer. So in short codestream is suitable for almost every development team: - More than one person is developing the code. - People need to get frequent reviews for efficient development. - Best suitable for the teams where new people are there very often. - Collaborations are part of every day to day activities. - Without raising PR and branch management reviews are been incorporated.

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

• Integration
• Easy to use.
• Easy to maintain.

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

• UI and navigation between services
• Only support YAML method
• Manual setting of triggers in the pipeline

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

When compared to Bitbucket, CodeStream is a luck lustre. Even though the overall features are more with CodeStream like customisation of API and more control of triggers across the designed pipeline, Bitbucket and Visual Studio score better in terms of faster implementation and dedicated and proven support system . Apart from that CodeStream fairs better than AWS CodePipeline in overall features

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

• Productivity of the team increased.
• Lowered the chances of mistakes at the time of review.
• No corners left un-observed.
• The development cycle becomes more interactive and hence team enjoys the peer discussions and review process.
• A lot of time is been saved, no need of conventional time taking reviews procedures.

• 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