Atlasssian Crucible is a peer review tool for finding bugs and defects in version control tools Subversion, Git, Mercurial, CVS, and Perforce.
N/A
GitHub
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
GitHub is a platform that hosts public and private code and provides software development and collaboration tools. Features include version control, issue tracking, code review, team management, syntax highlighting, etc. Personal plans ($0-50), Organizational plans ($0-200), and Enterprise plans are available.
$4
per month per user
Pricing
Crucible
GitHub
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Team
$40
per year per user
Enterprise
$210
per year per user
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Crucible
GitHub
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Crucible
GitHub
Considered Both Products
Crucible
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Crucible
Gitlab and GitHub are very comparable to Crucible, and would probably be my first choice if those were the tools used for versioning as they are directly linked to git. Crucible was chosen by a current client and I had no choice in its selection. I would probably have chosen Git…
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 …
Crucible has a better look and feel for developers because it is web compatible and works well with IE or Chrome. Being that it is a web browser friendly, using Crucible is seamless and user-friendly. GitHub is an external tool on a different environment that requires more …
Along with Github, I've used Bitbucket and Gitlab. Bitbucket integrates with FishEye, which allows you to institute Code Reviews and create a viable merge process. Gitlab offers similar built in tools. With Github, I'm not aware of any similar features, but this is likely due …
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.
GitHub is well suited for software development, GitHub is particularly well suited for software development projects, where teams need to collaborate on code, track changes, and review code changes. Also for open-source projects, GitHub is an ideal platform for open-source projects, where teams of developers from all over the world can collaborate on code and contribute to projects. For documentation, GitHub provides a platform for creating and sharing documentation, making it an ideal solution for teams that need to create and maintain documentation. On small and medium-sized teams GitHub is well suited as those teams that need to collaborate on software projects and track changes to their code.
As a repository it's great. It houses almost all the open-source applications/code that anyone can fork and play with. A huge collection of sample codes available with problem statements across different domains make Github a one-stop location.
I use GitHub with Windows and the Git Bash is superb. It [is] a powerful alternative to the Command Prompt and Powershell. Allows me to run shell scripts and UNIX commands inside the terminal [on] a Windows PC.
GitHub integration with almost all cloud development/deployment platforms is amazing. Deploying a new application in Azure is really smooth. Just link the GitHub repositories and it's good to go. From automatic build to deployment everything is just amazing.
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.
When browsing history of a file, GitHub could make it easier to see the file after a particular commit instead of just being able to quickly view the commit. I'd like to be able to see the commit or the file itself in one click.
I would like to be able to view commits by user.
I would love to be able to traverse code on GitHub (go to definition, etc) - the good news here is that they are working on these features!
GitHub's ease of use and continued investment into the Developer Experience have made it the de facto tool for our engineers to manage software changes. With new features that continue to come out, we have been able to consolidate several other SaaS solutions and reduce the number of tools required for each engineer to perform their job responsibilities.
- Easy to use compared to other version control software. UI interface makes it easy to use, as well as protects against making a major mistake by deleting code, etc. - UI looks modern. - Support for multiple platforms, which I assume will only get better with time. - Student benefits are awesome! - The size limitations on their repositories make sense to me. Not too crazy but realistic from a business perspective.
It's a testament to how easy it is to use GitHub and how many others use it that you can pretty much find the answer to any problem you have by searching online. Consequently, I've never needed to use their support. It's an incredibly easy tool to set up initially, so it won't require much onboarding expertise to get started.
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.
At the time to evaluation - Bitbucket was very tightly integrated into Atlassian’s suite of tools. For an organization that is starting out and looking to spend limited funds effectively - the cost/benefit of using that suite of tools usually doesn’t make sense. Granted things may have changed since then (its been over 5 years) - but at the time GitHub was effective - and all prospective engineers knew about it and already had accounts. This made it very easy to add to the organization and not lose time in training, etc. Developers seem to really love GitHub above most other tools out there - so that plays into the decision making as well.
Github has increased our rate of code development, increasing our publishing rate. This helps bring attention to the research we are doing and ultimately brings in more funding for further research.
Because GitHub makes my team more efficient, we are able to put more hours into code development / report writing rather than agonizing over different versions of code created without version control software.
We use a paid version of GitHub, because we work through private repositories, but the increase in productivity, efficiency, and research progress is definitely worth the price.
