AWS CodePipeline vs. Azure Pipelines

CodePipeline is well suited for an already existing AWS-native deployment. It is very easy to connect to existing repos like GitHub enterprise or cloud repos like CodeCommit. Being able to define the process by code (YAML) is a huge benefit for developers who favor that type of deployment setup. The UI is easy to use yet very powerful and customizable. Being able to leverage CloudTrail or Lambda is quite powerful, especially in larger more complex projects. It becomes less valuable with smaller projects or locally hosted deployments that don't get the benefits of a managed service in the AWS ecosystem. However, there are agents that can be run on private servers to allow integration. But naturally, smaller one-off projects benefit less from the automation value derived by CodePipeline.

Incentivized

With a fully Microsoft Azure based workflow - Azure Pipelines makes absolute sense. Azure Pipelines are robust and work very well with SonarQube for test coverage and are shared with our developers. This prevents the developers for pushing code without unit tests across our backend and frontend platforms. We have reduced our instances of manual regression tests especially when there are multiple teams working across the same repositories.

Incentivized

• It is reliable and works without errors
• It integrates well with our repository and all other AWS functions as well as our end database

Incentivized

• Code Integration/Code Deployment
• Azure Engine Auto Scaling Up with help of Pipeline
• Managing Version Control and deploy in rollback with just one click

Incentivized

• Ease of use - things like CircleCI or other tools are a bit easier to learn.
• Ability to build from more sources.

Incentivized

• Error messaging when team members don't have permissions

Incentivized

Overall, I give AWS Codepipeline a 9 because it gets the job done and I can't complain much about the web interface as much of the action is taking place behind the scenes on the terminal locally or via Amazon's infrastructure anyway. It would be nicer to have a better flowing and visualizable web interface, however.

Incentivized

Our pipeline takes about 30 minutes to run through. Although this time depends on the applications you are using on either end, I feel that it is a reasonable time to make upgrades and updates to our system as it is not an every day push.

Incentivized

We didn't need a lot of support with AWS CodePipeline as it was pretty straightforward to configure and use, but where we ran into problems, the AWS community was able to help. AWS support agents were also helpful in resolving some of the minor issues we encountered, which we could not find a solution elsewhere.

Incentivized

I felt that, out of the alternatives, AWS CodePipeline was the simplest to setup and most reliable. Since my client's infrastructure was already hosted in AWS, I felt it was a no-brainer. If a client needed a similar solution with on-prem or non-AWS infrastructure, I would probably evaluate a different solution. AWS CodePipeline is pretty tightly coupled with the rest of the AWS ecosystem.

Incentivized

We have used the GitHub CI/CD. Earlier we were using the Azure Pipelines but after GitHub had their actions, we integrated that for CI/CD. It runs the tests and makes a production build which can be live. GitHub CI/CD is more useful because we have to make script only once then just by few changes we can deploy it onto Azure, AWS, Google anywhere so we found it more convenient

Incentivized

• AWS CodePipeline reduced CI/CD pipeline development time by 10% for AWS native application stacks.
• AWS CodePipeline reduced response time to build failures by 3% through SNS integrations.

Incentivized

• We don't have to deploy changes manually
• But because of this that we automated some tasks, we need to be still aware of some edge cases we can meet and which can cause a pipelines failures
• We can deploy changes pretty fast

Incentivized