GitLab DevSecOps platform enables software innovation by aiming to empower development, security, and operations teams to build better software, faster. With GitLab, teams can create, deliver, and manage code quickly and continuously instead of managing disparate tools and scripts. GitLab helps teams across the complete DevSecOps lifecycle, from developing, securing, and deploying software. Differentiators, as described by Gitlab:
Simplicity: With GitLab, DevSecOps can…
$0
per month per user
IBM Cloud Continuous Delivery
Score 9.9 out of 10
N/A
IBM Cloud Continuous Delivery, available on IBM Cloud, allows users to provision an integrated toolchain using customizable, shareable templates with tools from IBM, third parties and open source. Automate builds and tests with Tekton-based delivery pipelines, and control quality with analytics.
As mentioned earlier, the features like chart visualization sets it apart from the others. Other than that, GitLab is open source while other are not and comparatively more secure that its other counterparts. Also, GitLab supports adding other types of attachments which is not …
When i was using the other platform, Some time i face down time, But GitLabs its not happening for single time. GitLab is having easy user interference as compared to other platforms. Pull Request, Code review, Issue tracking, Merging, Access control and User Roles is having a …
GitLab is miles ahead of the competition. In so many words, having a simple UI with robust security and the ability to conduct Git actions takes the cake. The competitions like to say they can do these things easily but their products are more confusing and hard to use.
GitLab allows a self-hosted version that is easy to setup and configure. It is also open-source as compared to GitHub. The integrated CI/CD tools is a plus, since we do not have to worry about those tools, unlike Github. The All-in-one solution of GitLab made sense for our …
Gitlab offers the best support for CI/CD pipelines and the highest degree of customisation for workflows, permissions, and integrations. The integration of BitBucket with JIRA is better than GitLab but CI/CD features are limited in comparison. GitLab's built-in Container …
Gitlab provides basic functionality like any other git tool. Some features of push and pull requests , clone and merge is handled equally well. It lacks in AI features which are there in GitHub and setup processes are difficult. Cost difference is the only concern while …
GitHub is an inferior product from most points of view. We had to use it and the teams finds no positives about it. Everything is a downgrade from our previous GitLab solution.
GitLab CI\CD is vastly superior to workflows, for example doing a manual node is just "when : manual" …
It's much simpler than the competitors. The one important feature Gitlab stand out is the CI/CD pipeline. GitHub required integration with external CI tools but Gitlab has this feature built-in. Compare to Jenkins and Teamcity, It's easy to use without any additional Plugins. …
Gitlab seems more cutting-edge than GitHub; however, its AI tools are not yet as mature as those of CoPilot. It feels like the next-generation product, so as we selected a tool for our startup, we decided to invest in the disruptor in the space. While there are fewer …
i have more exoerence in GitLab rather than bitbucket . As personally , it is good for me to understand how things is going on. i have used personally and also in organisation . It is great for developer to see there 3 months ago code and also can come up with new solution to …
Because with Visual Studio code, it was very easy for us to install GitLab in it and have easy access through the terminal and due to GitLab, it was easy to implement codes regarding API and AWS services to make our software better. Gitlens and all features help to check the …
GitLab provides a far superior platform due to it's great integration and CI/CD focus. And while in the beginning the UI might look a bit overwhelming with use you will find it way more useful than it's competitors. The variables and settings also make way more sense and it's …
My feedback may not be important here because when I joined the company they already had GitLab and we still use it due to the ability to do CI/CD Integration, deployments, debugging, code owners approval, and Jira integration. So far we have not had any major blocker that has …
Github is more open-source first and enterprise-first second in their approach. The reverse is true for GitLab. Both are exceptional products and it highly depends on the specific needs of an org
GitLab has a open-source community and great documentation that provides support resources and community contributions. AWS CodeCommit is used for integration with other AWS services in the AWS ecosystem and also have a low community and support compared to GitLab hence …
It was a management decision to use GitLab over other tools. It integrates well with RBAC using Terraform. Runners are easy to setup. Almost all the features the organization used before are available in GitLab.
For small projects or companies that do work on a few only code repositories selecting one of the git code hosting services like GitLab, GitHub, Bitbicket etc does not make a big difference.
But, if you are on a code development company that handles too many repositories and …
Software delivery is the key objective and GitLab made it much easier to hit the group quickly. It worked well with automation, and integrations with other SDLC tools used in the Organization and it is really easy to use. It's widely adopted and has the power to deliver what we …
GitLab's online IDE and code modification is much better compared to Stash. While pricier than Bitbucket, Gitlab also provides CI CD configuration better than BB.
Best fit for IBM Cloud and IBM Hybrid cloud strategy. Very well suited for RedHat Openshift and cloud-native build packs. Complementary solution for Enterprise Java workloads transformation and modernization journey such as java microservices development lifecycle and also …
We chose IBM Cloud Developer Tools for multiple reasons. Cost, current infrastructure vendor list, and Cloud Operations team experience were key driving factors for us. Palo Alto's Prisma Cloud product was slick for sure but we found it more difficult to deploy and integrate …
IBM Cloud developer tools had good support for mobile and web based applications and seemed relatively easy to integrate to our applications. We have other IBM tools so it had a slight edge over others when we compared.
IBM Cloud Developer Tools stack up against Visual Studios and other integration suites, with an agnostic approach. IBM Cloud Developer tools integrate seamlessly with your existing stack to augment and accelerate data science and analytics projects at large. Tools are designed …
This is recommended over other applications as it has a continuous delivery for non-mission critical applications also which has simple proof of concepts and this is reliable. Also, the integration to different platforms along with cloud implementation is an add-on. The ease of …
IBM Cloud Developer Tools is way easier than Jenkins and most of the features Jenkins has are not useful for us and the features we wanted were absent ButIBM Cloud Developer Tools saved our lives and is perfect in all aspects as we can easily develop and deploy. The only thing …
Both competitors listed work in a similar manner; you can automate the deployment of servers using configuration files and the command line. The difference is that Ansible and Terraform are provider-agnostic, meaning you can use them for other hosting providers as well (AWS, …
Mainly, AWS offers 5G services which are futuristic. AWS has More products than IBM Cloud & it offers High Parallel Performance & Computing. Better global coverage than IBM Cloud & Rigid SLAs with credit compensation
Coming to Microsoft Azure, its user interface is very easy to …
Eclipse with IBM Cloud Foundry and Kubernets we used to develop application in on premises and deployed into the cloud. And we created containers, created many projects and deployed into the cloud by using Continuous Delivery in IBM Cloud. Great service and great support. IBM …
There's not really a technical background on the decision of using IBM Cloud Continuous delivery. Our CTO assisted to a conference where IBM was promoting their services and offering a free tier. As in that instance the company was starting, every free tier offering was well …
CI/CD is much more user friendly than Jenkins. It better integrates to IBM Cloud features. On the other side, Jenkins deployed in a VM or better, on a K8S cluster is a less expensive solution.
I find IBM Cloud Continuous Delivery service way easier to set up compared to Travis CI. The visual interface helps you navigate throughout the service effortlessly. I used Travis CI 2 years ago, although it wasn't complicated, I took more time to create and set up an instance …
It is well-suited for any project that needs VCS. It's an excellent choice for teams that might be remote or have to collaborate across teams. Plenty of features allow for async working. With its dashboards and reporting features, it is also suitable for nontechnical PMs or stakeholders. It allows for very bespoke customization and can most often do much more than you need it to.
It provides a cloud-based integrated development environment that integrates with other IBM Cloud services to provide a streamlined development workflow. This includes real-time collaboration and code sharing capabilities, making it easy for teams to work together on projects. This feature is very useful for our app to maintain the code
I really feel the platform has matured quite faster than others, and it is always at the top of its game compared to the different vendors like GitHub, Azure pipelines, CircleCI, Travis, Jenkins. Since it provides, agents, CI/CD, repository hosting, Secrets management, user management, and Single Sign on; among other features
It's a great platform to develop, run, test and deploy the applications easily. And it makes very easier and secure the implementation of continuous delivery process. For first time and experts also can use this service so easily. Great service provided by the IBM Cloud Continuous Service. There are more services that helps a lot to work on it. Thanks a lot.
I find it easy to use, I haven't had to do the integration work, so that's why it is a 9/10, cause I can't speak to how easy that part was or the initial set up, but day to day use is great!
I've never had experienced outages from GItlab itself, but regarding the code I have deployed to Gitlab, the history helps a lot to trace the cause of the issue or performing a rollback to go back to a working version
GItlab reponsiveness is amazing, has never left me IDLE. I've never had issues even with complex projects. I have not experienced any issues when integrating it with agents for example or SSO
At this point, I do not have much experience with Gitlab support as I have never had to engage them. They have documentation that is helpful, not quite as extensive as other documentation, but helpful nonetheless. They also seem to be relatively responsive on social media platforms (twitter) and really thrived when GitHub was acquired by Microsoft
In more than a year using the IBM Cloud Continuous Delivery tool, I haven't had any major complaints or problems. However, in the last month, IBM suffered from a couple of problems through several of its services, and for a short period of time, I couldn't deploy successfully my projects. The problem was brief and was quickly fixed.
GitHub is an inferior product from most points of view. We had to use it and the teams finds no positives about it. Everything is a downgrade from our previous GitLab solution. GitLab CI\CD is vastly superior to workflows, for example doing a manual node is just "when : manual" in GitLab while you have to do clickops in GitHub to achieve the same. No overview of code in branches is a minus when we tried to figure out what our colleagues are trying to merge as it looked off.
We chose IBM Cloud Developer Tools for multiple reasons. Cost, current infrastructure vendor list, and Cloud Operations team experience were key driving factors for us. Palo Alto's Prisma Cloud product was slick for sure but we found it more difficult to deploy and integrate with our current environment and applications