GitLab Reviews

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. 

We create the pipeline and push it to GitLab to initiate the process. The cloud integration is straightforward.

When it comes to GitLab's CI/CD integration, it significantly supports our development process by accelerating deployments. With automated pipelines, we can focus more on development tasks without worrying about manual deployments, ultimately speeding up our development cycle.

In GitLab, I find the features and version control history to be most valuable for our development workflow. These aspects provide us with a clear view of changes and help us manage requests efficiently. I haven't utilized GitLab's security scanning capabilities yet. 

We plan to integrate tools like Sonicheap for code security. Currently, we use another product for security, focusing on Q4 security points.

We have used GitLab's features selectively for added security. We don't store passwords directly but use a secret manager and tools to sync passwords securely to our deployment environment.

I believe there's room for improvement in the advanced features, particularly in enhancing the pipeline functionalities. Better integration and usability within the pipeline could make a significant difference in user experience. I would suggest considering new features or functions that could streamline workflows further and make using GitLab even more efficient. Having additional functionalities that cater to specific needs could greatly enhance the overall experience with the platform.

I have been working with GitLab for the past 5 years. 

Regarding stability, while I can't rate it on a scale of one to ten, I can say that we've experienced good stability with GitLab, with no downtime or major issues.

I've had support from forums like Stack Overflow when needed. In my experience, GitLab integrates well with third-party tools like SonicWall and Slack without any major issues.

The setup process for GitLab is straightforward and easy to use.

Regarding pricing, I would rate GitLab as moderately priced, maybe around a seven or eight out of ten. It could be more flexible for clients but generally offers good value.

When comparing GitLab to competitors like Bitbucket, I find GitLab to be superior, especially in terms of features and functionality. Bitbucket still has its own strengths and is preferred by some organizations.

Overall, I would rate GitLab around eight or nine out of ten. I highly recommend it to other users for both company purposes and personal projects. GitLab provides a solid starting point for learning and working efficiently, making it a valuable tool for developers.

We are using this solution for DevOps adoption primarily.

The best part of the solution is it's a single platform, and this platform can help you do your required management, your source code management, your build management, your test management, artifact management, deployment management, et cetera. If this solution was not there, you'd have to put three or four different products together to do all the activities. With this, we are using one single product, including security. Everything is happening on a single platform. It is lean and easy management with no complexities and no integration issues. This one platform is able to do everything for us.

The solution has an established roadmap that lays out its plans for upgrades over the next two to three years. 

The release schedules are quite clear. Even if I'm expecting some improvement, the improvement release cycles are already there in place. So even if I say I want some improvement, they will say it is already planned in the first quarter, second quarter, or third quarter. That said, most everything is quite improved already, and they're improving even further still. 

We have been using the solution for a year. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We are using an on-premises deployment, and on-prem will always have challenges with scalability. On-premises infrastructure never has elasticity since everything is fixed. If I have 500 servers, I have only 500. I cannot grow them to a thousand in a minute. My storage is going to be limited. 

Our users are not more than 500 users. So for us, the scaling we have fits. 

I myself being a DevOps consultant, have seen deployments for 2000 or even 3000 users also.In that sense, there is an issue of scalability. The infrastructure we have means the solution will be quite scalable for the next three years. 

We have tried out a lot of other products, including Azure DevOps. We have tried a lot of open-source products as well. The major benefit we found in this solution is it's a single platform doing everything. If I go to Azure DevOps, Microsoft would also say it's a single platform, yet it's not a single platform. They have integrated themselves with multiple toolchain vendors, and it's a Microsoft wrapper on the top. When it comes to Microsoft is a resource-hungry solution. You require a lot of resources to run on Microsoft.

The deployment is fairly easy. The people who are doing the deployment should be very clear about the fundamentals, like any adoption, like when you're doing a DevOps adoption and moving towards automation. 

The most important part is you really have to work on education. On the one hand, you have the investment, however, the investment will never show you how to use it. Once the adoption grows in the organization, you'll be able to see the returns and the benefits that are there. 

We are currently in a phase of adoption across the organization. It's going on very well, and deployment is fairly easy. I didn't find much difficulty when doing deployment and getting people to work with it. Anybody who works on DevOps toolchain implementation can even go and implement GitLab also. It's that easy.

We have a new adoption going on and within a year we'll begin to see a return on investment.

GitLab is a paid version, Ultimate GitLab. It has three editions: one is a free edition or a community edition. They have a premium edition, which is a paid version. Then, they have the ultimate edition, which is also a paid edition. 

There are no hidden costs or fees associated with the product. I pay one price and get everything I need. 

We are using GitLab Ultimate.

As a DevOps consultant, I would like to give advice some. From 2008 or 2009, when the global market started adopting DevOps, until the year 2019 or 2020, we always had a problem. If I wanted to have DevOps automation in the organization, we would require four or five tools minimum. Since GitLab in 2020 emerged as a single platform, always advise people who are implementing DevOps to always move towards a single platform. 

The reason is that you save a lot of money on your infrastructure costs. You also save a lot of money on the resources which are required to maintain all infrastructure for a single platform. And if you maintain a single platform, you'll require an optimized resource tool to maintain that.

If you're going to have multiple tools in your infrastructure for DevOps, you require many people to maintain that. In the end, everything boils down to cost. Cost is definitely high if you need to maintain infrastructure with multiple toolchains. So my advice is always, when we talk about agility, to be lean. So when you bring in GitLab, you get a lean infrastructure; you get a simple and non-complex infrastructure. You have minimum compliance issues and minimum regulatory issues. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our company uses the solution as a repository manager for our best code, to set up CI/CD pipelines, and to build projects and get architects. We build code and generate artifacts that we push to UrbanCode for deployment. 

For one use case, we created an entire CI/CD pipeline that deploys code to the artifact and Target Server. This deployment was our first using the solution and included a lot of scripting. The customer has 250 current users that includes maintenance, owners, and developers.

Eventually, we plan to use the solution for all deployments. 

The user interface is really good so that helps with huge teams who need to collaborate. 

The solution is great for SCM, depository management, building, and CI/CD.

The solution does not have many built-in functions or variables so scripting is required and that is a drawback. For example, it would be nice to have a button on the interface for setting up environments in meta folders. 

I have been using the solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. Performance comes down slightly when multiple pipelines for a complex project are triggered at once. I rate performance a seven out of ten. 

We use the solution on-premises so do not scale in the way others do on the cloud. 

Technical support is very quick. I raised two tickets and and they followed up regularly which was great. 

Our company currently uses UrbanCode for deployments. Eventually, we want to conduct all deployments in the solution. 

The setup is straightforward so I rate it an eight out of ten. 

Our company includes a four-person deployment team who implements the solution for customers. 

Our internal team handles maintenance of our GitLab server. Every month, we download, install, and publish patches or upgrades to our community. 

The solution is based on a licensing model that includes technical support and is paid annually. Our company currently has between 430 to 480 licenses. 

The solution is newer to the market so other tools with longevity such as Jenkins are more popular. The solution is slowly emerging as its potential as a complete CI/CD setup becomes known. 

UrbanCode is specifically designed as a deployment tool and dominates because of its efficiencies. The user interface has built-in functionality for creating multiple environments, creating approval processes, and downloading artifacts. Conversely, to perform these same functions in the solution you must script the configuration file. 

Java includes Deployment Managers and agent pools for deploying to a Target Server. The solution might not be good for deployments because there isn't enough flexibility to create them quickly. We can script, but it is easier to click buttons for deployment functionality. 

I recommend the solution and rate it a seven out of ten. 

We have our CI/CD pipelines set up in GitLab. It is our code base. 

The solution makes the CI/CD pipelines easy to execute. 

The tool should include a feature that helps to edit the code directly. 

I have been using the product for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

I haven't reached out to them yet. 

GitLab's deployment is easy. 

GitLab is cheap. 

Our primary use case is for source code maintenance, then doing the build and running code coverage tools like SonarQube, and then deployment.

We have seen a couple of merge requests or pull requests raised in GitLab. I see the interface, the way it shows the difference between the two source codes, that it is easy for anyone to do the review and then accept the request; the pull request is the valuable feature. 

We have only seen a couple of times on Gitlab, which we use for building some of the applications. Recently, we have heard that some of the builds were taking a long time or were not scheduled. In such cases, they had to contact the GitLab community or the GitLab organization to address these issues.  

So, there is room for improvement in regard to the issues with build times. 

In future releases, additional features could be added in post-deployment monitoring. Currently, GitLab supports CI/CD up to deployment. Anything that would assist in monitoring deployments, especially in the context of Kubernetes or Docker, would be valuable. It may not be necessary for enterprise-level use, but for midrange organizations, integrating post-deployment monitoring of infrastructures and generating reports could be beneficial.

We have been using this solution for three years now. 

The solution offers good stability. However, sometimes we do see some issues due to upgrades and patches. But a couple of times, we have seen build issues where it takes a long time, or it gets stuck, and people have to manually restart those.

It is a scalable solution in our environment. We have over a thousand end users. 

The support is very good. 

Positive

Earlier, we were using Atlassian products, and then we shifted to GitLab.

The deployment is handled by a different team. For maintenance, we get good support from GitLab. For any production issues, we hear that we get good support from GitLab. That is something good.  

My advice would be it's a very good tool for developers, especially those spread across the globe. It has a very good interface for any pull request or code review. The CI/CD pipeline is also easily built in, so we can easily build and deploy it into various environments. So that eases the developer's and the production ops team's life.

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

I use GitLab to manage repository code sources, scanning code sources, and CI/CD. We have around 100 users.

GitLab helps us integrate with many types of software. You can deploy and integrate source code, various tools, webhooks, etc. 

I like GitLab's security and SAS tools.

GitLab could add a plugin to integrate with Kubernetes stuff.

I have been using GitLab for four years now.

GitLab is stable.

GitLab is scalable. You can deploy it in a Kubernetes cluster or on VMs.

We don't contact support. GitLab has such a huge community that you can easily find a solution in the forums. 

I have used Bitbucket and GitHub for personal use. We adopted GitLab because it's a good enterprise solution.

GitLab is easy to install and takes you less than a day. You download the GitLab package, configure it, and push the repos. If you want to integrate Sonar Cube or Jenkins, you can use webhooks or the Jenkins file.

GitLab has a good ROI because it can accommodate many users, and it increases your DevOps score.

GitLab has three plans: starter, professional, and LTMH. The LTMH is $99 for user permits, but some integrators in Morocco bundle GitLab into a package. It's reasonable, but they could lower the price now that we have a huge community and many users.

I rate GitLab eight out of 10. It's a good solution for DevOps and managing Ripple. It's possibly the most complete DevOps and DevSecOps platform. You can help users to make wonderful stuff with their source code and applications. GitLab supports many types of source code like Python, Ruby, etc. It's great software.

In some of the projects we are involved with, we use GitLab for the purposes of issue management and as a configuration management tool. Along with GitLab, we also use the core Jira software for issue management functionality, as well as GitLab Runner for its CI/CD tools.

Our internet connection runs on a different infrastructure to the greater internet system, so we are using on-premises versions of all these solutions. Because nothing is cloud-based, we don't need much in the way of firewall or security solutions.

The most important features of GitLab for us are issue management and all the CI/CD tools. Another aspect that I love about GitLab is the UI.

For as long as I have used GitLab, I haven't encountered any major limitations. However, I think that perhaps the search functionality could be better.

The main shortcoming is that with some parts of GitLab, things can get quite complex. Especially in the beginning, the learning curve can be a bit steep and it takes some time to learn how to use the tools. That said, once you understand the mentality of it, it becomes easy.

We have been using GitLab for about five years.

We have had no instability issues with GitLab. When it comes to maintenance, we have IT departments that deal with that, and I am not directly involved in the maintenance of the tools themselves so I don't know if it's difficult to maintain or not.

We haven't yet tried to scale it past the 100 or so users in my organization.

We haven't used any other similar solution before GitLab.

In some areas, the initial stages of using GitLab can be complex and presents a steep learning curve. It takes some time to learn and use all the tools properly, but once you understand the mentality behind it, it is not that difficult.

We didn't implement GitLab ourselves as we have IT departments that take care of that process. I am unsure as to whether they used any external consultants or deployed it themselves, however.

In total, I believe we have more than 300 licenses spread over about 100 users, though I can't comment on the costs involved.

GitLab is a wholly complete solution and it is for this reason that I can recommend it to other users.

I would rate GitLab a nine out of ten.

There are two primary functions. The first function is a Git-compliant source code repository, and the second function is a full-fledged CI/CD platform.

The CI/CD functionality as a whole is pretty helpful and nice to have. Their CI/CD engine is very mature. It's very comprehensive and flexible, and compared to other projects, I believe that GitLab is number one right now from that perspective.

They have had a Kubernetes integration built in, but they recently announced that in Version 16 they're going to strip out the legacy Kubernetes integration, and then introduce a new way of doing the integration. I don't really like the new way because it is pretty focused on the on-premise environment, but we're in a hybrid environment. The integration they're offering is not really a good fit for hybrid infrastructure and I was disappointed with that new feature. 

I work for a government-based institution in the US and government-based institutions are very strict about compliance and security. The new model GitLab is offering implies the connectivity will be initiated from the server side to the clients, meaning from Kubernetes back to GitLab, and that's not going to work in our space. We cannot allow traffic back from the cloud to on-prem, so that's going to be a compliance violation. I understand why they want to implement the feature, maybe it's going to be more solid, but it looks like they aren't taking into consideration hybrid environments and the security and compliance aspects. We will find a workaround, but we're still kind of disappointed. It'll generate a lot of additional work.

One feature that has been requested by our development team is a multi-level review of the pool request. When you maintain code and you've got a lot of contributors, a contributor can submit a change in the form of a pool request. There is a feature called merge request in GitLab for when you have a team of people who are supposed to approve a change, but Atlassian BitBucket has a more complete version of the same feature, which includes a multi-approval mechanism. For instance, if you have three people, you can create a rule for how changes should be approved. Maybe they should be approved by you and me and the third guy is not really important, or it could be approved by only you or me, or all three of us together. BitBucket has that flexibility and there is no such flexibility in GitLab.

I've been using GitLab for approximately four years. 

Overall, it's pretty stable. 

Scalability is not directly a feature of GitLab because GitLab is about storing your source code. Your storage can be organized in a way that makes it very scalable. For instance, we use the NetApp Store and we are not limited at all, so whenever we hit a disk space problem, we can simply extend the storage and give it more IOPs. However, the way you organize your storage is not GitLab's responsibility.

There are about 100 people currently involved with this solution at my company. 

Their customer service is very helpful. They're really good. I communicate with tons of different support clients and GitLab's support is one of the best. A lot of people don't like calling support because it's often useless or annoying, but I would rate GitLab's support as a ten out of ten. I haven't had any complications. 

Positive

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. I don't remember having any issues related to the setup. 

There is an open-source edition and a commercial version. I've used both, but mostly I've used the commercial one. However, the open-source version is also very, very good. The commercial version is reasonably priced. It's about 20k annually. 

Checkmarx is a static analysis tool. GitLab offers, in turn, their own solution. They offer static analysis, dynamic analysis, and a lot of integration. They also offer integration with Checkmarx. There are a lot of features, actually, and plenty of tools. For the price, I think it's very comprehensive.

Compared to other products, for instance, Nessus, they're approximately at the same price level. I would put them all on the same level with approximately the same functionality, but GitLab is one of the best.

I would give this solution a ten out of ten. There are a couple of caveats, but compared to other products, GitLab is certainly the leading solution in the market right now. 

GitLab was mostly used for version control. All of the code was uploaded into GitLab and then shared across the company. We also used it for running CICD pipelines and automating those pipelines.

Basically, it was up to the mark. The solution did what it was supposed to do.

We had to write GitLab configuration files, commands and conditions, in a YML format. I would like configuration of a YML file to be done via UI rather than a code file. There should be support for code files, as well, but if there could be a UI for it and a little bit of documentation along with it, that would help.

I used this solution for two years.

The solution is stable. 

This is a scalable solution. We had around 200 users working with it. Two people are required for deployment and maintenance. 

The implementation was handled in-house. It shouldn't take a long time to implement because it's pretty basic stuff. It all depends on how much customization you want to have. 

My advice for others looking into this product is to go for it. GitLab is the future. There are some alternates, like Stash and Bitbucket, that have the same concept, but GitLab is one of the most widely used version control systems. It's easy to use.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten.