GitLab Reviews

I am using GitLab primarily as a code repository and for CI/CD tools and deployments.

The feature I appreciate the most about GitLab is its ease of use and compatibility, which allows for straightforward building and deployment processes. 

Continuous integration with deployment is very powerful, which is a significant reason for migrating from TFS to GitLab. Its documentation is extensive, and YAML files are user-friendly, making the deployment process more or less straightforward.

There are missing search features, particularly when searching repositories or applying filters. Additionally, I have encountered issues with the deployment of CI/CD pipelines, especially dealing with variable environments. 

Creating a YAML file with numerous variables can be challenging without a way to separate them by different environments. It would be beneficial to have a user-friendly interface for setting up these configurations, instead of just writing YAML files.

I have been working with GitLab for a little over a year as I transition from TFS.

The stability of GitLab is impressive. Everything, including runners, functions smoothly without any issues.

Technical support from GitLab has been satisfactory. I have had meetings where they taught me, explained things, and provided guidance for starting from scratch. Overall, my experience has been pretty good.

I am transitioning from TFS to GitLab, mainly due to the powerful continuous integration capabilities of GitLab.

Currently, I have two developers partially dedicated to creating the CI/CDs, Firebend, and repositories.

Migrating to GitLab is bringing time-saving benefits, and everything is easier to automate. This transition is crucial for us.

The pricing of GitLab is reasonable, aligning with what I consider to be average compared to competitors.

I am migrating from TFS to GitLab.

I would appreciate some AI-driven helpers, similar to Visual Studio's Copilot, integrated into GitLab. This could enhance the user experience by providing assistance during configuration. I rate GitLab a nine out of ten points.

I use GitLab to manage our development lifecycle. We use it to store code and automate our CI/CD pipeline. Once developers commit their code, the CI/CD pipeline automatically starts, supporting development through various stages. It is part of our software development life cycle.

GitLab enhances productivity and reduces time since many tasks are automated. I appreciate the team collaboration it offers, enabling multiple people to work on the same Git repository seamlessly. 

Additionally, it streamlines our DevOps processes with automated CI/CD pipelines.

There are some challenges with repository file management as GitLab may struggle to manage larger files. Improvements could be made regarding size management and file partitioning. 

Also, the UI has remained the same for a couple of years and could benefit from an update with AI features and better customization.

I have been using GitLab for three or four years.

I have not encountered any performance or stability issues with GitLab so far. It has remained stable and reliable.

GitLab is scalable as multiple users can simultaneously access it without issues.

We have rarely needed to escalate issues to technical support since GitLab usually runs seamlessly. Occasionally, issues might arise if the URL isn't up or due to server problems.

Positive

I have worked with Bitbucket. In comparison, GitLab is more advanced, particularly in terms of cloud capabilities.

Setting up GitLab is smooth and straightforward. There is no complexity as long as you're familiar with the basics. A simple code can be reused, facilitating easy installation and use.

GitLab is mostly free, with potential costs arising from upgrade versions. There is a trial period of about six months during which it is free. Afterward, fees apply.

I have experience with Bitbucket and Jenkins, and both serve as alternatives to GitLab for version control and CI/CD pipelines.

I recommend GitLab for DevOps engineers. It is easy and fast to use. While Jenkins is also good for understanding, GitLab offers an easier user experience. I rate GitLab as ten on a scale of one to ten.

We were using GitLab as a repository for our project. Whenever we were developing anything, we would commit our codes there. 

We used it for creating branches, merging branches, and comparing branches to resolve conflicts during code committing. We configured the CI/CD pipeline to automate our deployment process. We also utilized it in conjunction with tools like Octopus and OpenShift.

GitLab helped us streamline our code-committing and versioning process. It provided better user-friendly solutions for comparing and resolving conflicts when committing code. 

The CI/CD pipeline setup was straightforward and required fewer commands, making it simpler to use compared to Tekton. This efficiency in code management and deployment contributed to smoother operations in our projects.

The most valuable aspects of GitLab are the ability to create branches, merge branches, and compare branches to resolve code conflicts. 

The documentation provided by GitLab is very comprehensive, which is useful for resolving queries. GitLab's logs are also beneficial for tracking the status of our CI/CD pipeline.

GitLab can improve its user interface to make conflict resolution more user-friendly. Better and more descriptive logs during CI/CD pipeline configuration would also be beneficial to diagnose issues more quickly. 

Sometimes, the logs provided are not sufficient to understand the errors, and we needed assistance from our DevOps team.

I have been using GitLab for around four to five years.

I have not experienced any performance or stability issues with GitLab so far.

GitLab is scalable and works well with multiple environments. It integrates well with other tools. It has all the features required for our coding and deployment needs, which makes it scalable to our changing requirements.

I did not have the opportunity to engage with GitLab's technical support as I did not encounter any issues requiring escalation.

Neutral

The initial setup was straightforward. There were no challenges beyond typical configuration, and the documentation was adequate.

Our DevOps team handled most of the configuration work, and we, as developers, made changes only occasionally for personal use scenarios.

I have never paid for using GitLab personally, as it is free for our usage purposes. Even when working in other small organizations, we opted for GitLab as it was cost-efficient.

I would recommend GitLab to others because it is free and user-friendly. It provides all the necessary functionalities we need.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Mainly, we use GitLab as a source control repository, and I use GitLab CI for the CI/CD pipeline.

GitLab's source control is excellent. Having the source control and pipeline in the same platform makes integration seamless. It is already integrated, with no need to configure any webhooks or other settings. 

Implementing CI/CD with GitLab has accelerated the time to market significantly. As we implement automated testing and DevSecOps, it speeds up the process by forty to sixty percent.

GitLab should enhance its GitOps capability as they are currently using FluxCD, however, Argo CD is better and offers more features. GitLab should work on improving their user interface for GitOps as it is lagging behind.

I have been working with GitLab for more than three years now.

GitLab is very stable with no issues in performance or availability.

GitLab is highly scalable, but in our current architecture using Docker containers, it isn't. That is why we're transitioning to OpenShift for future scalability with increased user numbers.

I have interacted with architects for some advice during the implementation, and they were prompt in their response. However, I have not had to open any support tickets yet.

I have worked with several CI/CD tools, including Jenkins, Azure DevOps, Tekton, and Jenkins. GitLab CI is more powerful than Jenkins and Azure DevOps and comparable to Tekton.

The initial setup of GitLab was straightforward. We have it installed as a Linux package and as a Docker container, which took very little time.

I have used Tekton before, the vanilla version on Kubernetes and Red Hat's version of the pipeline.

Overall, I recommend GitLab to other DevOps teams due to its powerful CI capabilities and having most tools you need on the same platform. It enables seamless integration and automation. I rate GitLab nine out of ten.

When a developer checks in code, it is automatically built and deployed, and automated test cases are also run. We have extensive integration with GitLab, which helps us with source code management. We run the static code analysis using SonarQube. 

Technologies are always changing. Nowadays, new things like serverless computing and workload management have emerged. We have noticed a few gap items for faster service delivery. For example, we do user interface testing in the latest team and automate it using some tools. Recently, we integrated a tool with user interface testing, which can simulate a multi-user environment. So, we would like to see more integration with different platforms.

We normally do load testing for an hour, extending that load with two or three different use cases. We increase the load by two or three times to check how the application responds. This helps us see if the application can withstand increased load, though it may reject messages or requests when it can't handle two to three times the normal load.

We do endurance or soak testing by leaving the system at the rated load, like 300 requests per second, for 12-16 hours to observe stability. We monitor for CPU leakage, memory leakage, queue building, and similar issues. If there are any problems, we fine-tune and fix them. For performance testing, we test at multiple levels: one at the service level and two at the system level. We normally don't test at the integration level.

My company has 90 users. 

The solution's deployment is straightforward. We have containerized applications that are deployed to the environment. 

GitLab was deployed in-house. 

The main value and impact of using the product are significant. We create and maintain vulnerability-free software by integrating tools like ManageEngine, which periodically patches our runtime environments, including operating systems, kernels, and software. Additionally, we run automated Nessus scans periodically, every week and day, to identify new vulnerabilities even after applying patches.

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

We do two levels of security scanning. One is at the build level, where we integrate with security packages and use tools like OWASP for top vulnerability compliance. This ensures that all third-party tools, like Tomcat and JBoss, are scanned as part of the build.

The second level is a reactive scan at runtime. We scan Oracle clients, JDKs, JBoss, Tomcat, Log4j, and other components during runtime. We also consider the operating system's security. Before we complete software testing, we use Nessus to perform a runtime security scan.

We are not using the community version of GitLab, but we are using it for ticketing and publishing the tool versioning.

The best features of GitLab are versioning and keeping track of the versions.

GitLab helps me save time and provide financial benefits, as keeping track of the updated version and the changes is money and time-saving.

GitLab has CI/CD pipeline capabilities.

I have been working with GitLab for probably six to seven years.

I am satisfied with GitLab's security, and we have not experienced any problems so far.

Regarding scalability, I did not face any issues with GitLab supporting my projects.

I have not contacted GitLab's technical support.

Neutral

I have seen benefits from using GitLab, since my directors and the team are using it, they must be happy with it.

I rate GitLab seven out of ten because nothing is perfect. I think we have to finish the conversation. I have told you what I could tell you.

GitLab is predominantly used for software development and practicing DevOps. GitLab CI/CD is one of the best features, and the solution is used primarily for software development.

GitLab is robust software and easy to use. There is excellent documentation available on their site but it can be overwhelming for early learners. 

They incorporate new features every September, and they have introduced their own code editor and AI features.

The pricing has been substantially increased, which is a major concern. While GitLab has a lot of documentation, the complexity and volume can be overwhelming, especially for new learners. Structuring the documentation more effectively could help alleviate this issue.

GitLab was resold for approximately two years.

The solution is stable, and there have been no noted glitches or latency issues.

The solution is easy to scale.

Customer service and support are good.

Positive

Previously we worked as resellers of other IT software like Snyk and Aqua Cloud Security.

The initial setup is medium in terms of difficulty. It's neither too easy nor too difficult.

Pricing is relatively expensive.

Previously explored solutions like Snyk and Aqua Cloud Security.

GitLab is a very good solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use the solution as a source code manager or version control manager.

In our software development lifecycle, GitLab is used as a component for code repository management. We use GitLab for several projects to handle code repositories. For other software projects, we use Bitbucket, but the use case for both is very similar.

Many global users prefer GitLab for its enhanced pipeline automation for CI/CD features. It stands out among source code managers due to its parent-child pipeline feature. If users want to leverage this feature, they should consider using it. It’s not the only platform with this capability, but GitLab excels in automating many operations and offers integration with other platforms.

The solution supports platforms like Azure, GCP, and AWS. This capability makes it a preferred choice, even though other platforms also offer similar integration features. Additionally, GitLab’s tendency to be independent of ownership by another major company makes it an attractive option for many developers who prefer cloud usage

The tool's UI is good. 

In the next release, I would like to see GitLab expand its integration capabilities to include platforms like DigitalOcean, which developers widely use for cloud infrastructure. Enhancing CI/CD automation features specifically tailored for DigitalOcean would be beneficial. 

I have been working with the product for more than six months. 

The solution is stable. 

The product is scalable. 

The tool's technical support is great. 

The solution is free. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

I'm a product owner. So, I'm not really using the product myself on a day-to-day basis, but I've been managing teams and companies using GitLab for four to five years. Besides that, I've been involved in two or three tool selection experiences where GitLab was one of the candidates, and because of that, I pretty thoroughly investigated GitLab.

It's a great toolbox where the CI/CD pipeline is the fundamental component, but there are so many other features that you can pull from, which makes it a very powerful tool. My current client is using AWS, and they can, of course, use AWS CodePipeline, but GitLab is much more mature than that, and it also gives you the freedom to decide to go to another platform or have a multi-cloud strategy and things like that. That freedom for me is also very valuable.

It's more related to the supporting layer of features, such as issue management and issue tracking. We tend to always use, for example, Jira next to it. That doesn't mean that GitLab should build something similar to Jira because that will always have its place, but they could grow a bit in those kinds of supporting features. I see some, for example, covering ITSM on a DevOps team level, and that's one of the things that I and my current client would find really helpful. It's understandably not going to be their main focus and their core, and whenever you are with a company that needs a bit more advanced features on that specific topic, you're probably still going to integrate with another tool like Jira Service Management, for example. However, some basic features on things like that could be really helpful.

In terms of additional features, nothing comes to mind. One of the potential pitfalls is to keep adding new features and functionalities. They can just improve some of the existing features to make it high-end, top-quality. I don't have any substantial experience with agile planning. I don't know the industries GitLab is in, and I don't know why they make decisions like this, but as a customer, I would rather see them invest in improving the basic agile planning functionalities rather than adding, for example, portfolio planning features. That's because if I'm going to do portfolio planning, I probably will also need a lot of business users. I'm not sure if I want them in GitLab, I'd rather have them in Jira collaborating with me on portfolio planning. That's way better fitted for that type of work.

I don't have a strong opinion on that or much experience with that because, in the two companies, we used a self-hosted instance of GitLab where the user base was pretty small with 40 or 50 users. My current client has 300 users, which still is not huge, and we're using a managed hosted server. Its performance is fine. It is not stunning, but fine. I just don't have an insight on how much effort that costs from the hosting party.

It is a scalable product. For my current client, we're looking at doing exactly that. We have been using the basic features, and we're looking into making more use of the security features and static testing unit. We're in the middle of doing that. I wouldn't be doing that if I wasn't convinced about its scalability.

My current experience is with the hosted instance of GitLab. So, there's a company in between.

Before that, I've been having contact with them in the tool selection phase as well as the implementation phase, and I was very happy and impressed with their knowledge and responsiveness. I would be curious to see how it is if you're three years into using the tool and run into an issue. That's because in the phase of being one of the tools you want to consider for CI/CD, obviously, they're very willing and eager to get you on board, and thus are on top of your support request, but if you're a running customer, with three or four years in, I'm curious how their responsiveness and expertise would be. I don't have that experience.

Based on my experience, I would rate them a four out of five. They were very good. If I have a question or we aren't getting support quite quickly enough, I would still feel free to call the account manager I was in contact with back then.

Positive

I haven't done it myself yet, but I have been working with the teams who have, and I would rate it a four out of five in terms of the ease of setup. It's pretty straightforward. That's also one of the strengths of GitLab. For example, for my current client, setting up a default GitLab runner that suits most of the teams was the biggest challenge, which is a compliment to the setup procedure of GitLab because that was easy enough.

It's always difficult to compare prices fairly because features between competitors always differ pretty strongly. 

There are three tiers. The Premium version of GitLab is a no-brainer. If I look at the difference between Free and Premium, I would always go for Premium. For me, that's a no-brainer. In terms of competitiveness, they're doing a great job with Premium. The step between Premium and Ultimate might need a business case in most companies. You get a lot more features, but there is also a pretty steep difference in price.

I'm not sure if they have some kind of discount. I've been negotiating with them on prices before, and I believe they weren't too happy to give discounts, but list prices are $19 per user, per month for Premium and $99 per user, per month for Ultimate. 

So, the difference between Premium and Ultimate is a bit bigger, and in most companies, you need to build some type of business case. If I look at the security testing features that you get, such as compliance and value streaming portfolio mapping, I'm not sure if a lot of companies are directly looking for that in GitLab. I myself would rather, for example, use Jira for that than GitLab, but still, security and compliance for me would be the biggest benefits of going to Ultimate. My current client is in the financial industry, and business cases are built up rather easily. So, in terms of competitiveness of features, they're doing pretty well.

In the last tool selection I was involved in, the main competitors were GitHub and Atlassian. CircleCI was another one, but it wasn't a strong competitor. We were not sure about CircleCI.

The difference between GitLab and GitHub is minimal. They're pretty similar. The difference between GitHub and Atlassian is a bit bigger because Atlassian has several applications. If you were to set up a CI/CD pipeline, you would need Jira, BitBucket, and then bigger pipelines, or Bamboo as a build too. You would also need a couple of tools for user management. You need to set up a tool stack. Atlassian's flexibility is perfect, but if you were to score that on ease of setup, that's probably going to score worse than GitHub. That's a clear difference for me between Atlassian tooling and GitLab.

For me, CircleCI, Jenkins, CloudBees, Concourse, and Travis are doing the same in a way. There's some overlap, but the target audience is completely different. As a big enterprise, you wouldn't be looking at a tool like that very soon. Those are tools that would fit in a pipeline for a smaller company that really values flexibility and a customizable developer experience. In an enterprise environment, you just want one tool that's easy to set up and easy to manage, and GitLab and GitHub are perfect for that.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. I am very satisfied with it.

We are using GitLab for source code configuration and for CI/CD processes.

The CI/CD process is very efficient. We are utilizing the pipelines extensively and gaining significant benefits from GitLab.

We are not using the AI process yet, however, I would like to see AI support in GitLab. Maybe it already does. I am not sure how it supports AI processes.

We have been using GitLab for two years.

GitLab supports us very well.

We do not have any direct technical support from GitLab. We ask questions to our IT department, and they may seek external support if needed.

Neutral

We have just tried Jenkins. We are using GitLab. GitLab has better support, and its features are superior compared to Jenkins.

The initial setup was handled by our IT department.

GitLab is a cost-saving tool and is particularly effective for coding processes.

I do not have any recommendations or suggestions. I rate GitLab a ten out of ten.