Crucible vs. Review Board

Depends on the version control and devops process your development teams adopt. Git (via Bitbucket, GitHub, GitLab, etc...) has become the new industry norm, and using pull requests can often provide the same code review features Crucible is used for. However, if you require code review beyond change/diff based (i.e. via pull request), then Crucible allows you to review code with more granular control, such as on per file basis.

Incentivized

• Easily add comments, identify defects, gather peer input.
• 24/7 input from peers eases developer schedules and location independence.
• Email notifications filtered by group or individuals provide control of who gets notifications, and who can submit comments.

Incentivized

• It can sometimes be a bit slow to load. A server reboot for us tends to solve that issue. I'm not sure if it is a server issue, or maybe Crucible may have some caching issues.
• I wish that you could easily stop the review creation process, rather than abandoning it.

Incentivized

Good support overall being an Atlassian product, with options including free/paid official support and community provided help.

Incentivized

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 GitHub if given a say.

Incentivized

• I am not involved in the acquisition of Crucible so I cannot comment on the financial investment but I believe it is a necessary tool to have in any software shop, small or big.
• As a developer, having Crucible as the code review process is a great asset and will save time and reduce risks which I believe is a positive return of investment.

Incentivized