GitLab Reviews

For us, Gitlab's most valuable feature is the integration with Cypress. We're using Cypress as an automation tool, so we're using GitLab as a tool for running in parallel.

I'm new to GitLab, so I would appreciate more documentation about the code and commands.

I have been using GitLab for almost a year now.

I rate GitLab nine out of 10 for stability.

I rate GitLab eight out of 10 for scalability. We have around 40 people using it.

Setting up GitLab is straightforward. 

I believe we are using the free version of GitLab. 

I rate GitLab a solid nine out of 10. I recommend GitLab. Based on what I've heard, I think GitLab is will be the permanent tool we'll use. I don't think that we're going to look for any other tool in the near future.

My team primarily uses GitLab for CI/CD purposes. Whatever code I develop has to go with the team, so I work in a team that tries to write its version of the code, or uses the ticketing system, takes a ticket, covers that information, and then updates the main branch about it. That's the use case my team has for GitLab.

We're only using the basic features of GitLab and haven't used any advanced features. The solution works fine, so that's what we like about GitLab. We're party using GitHub and GitLab. We have a GitHub server, while we use GitLab locally or only within our team, and it works okay. We don't have any significant problems with the solution.

We also found the straightforward setup, stability, and scalability of GitLab valuable.

I've noticed an area for improvement in GitLab, particularly needing to go through many steps to push the code to the repository. Resolving that issue would make the product better.

My team quickly fixed it by writing a small script, then double-clicking or enabling the script to take care of the issue. However, that quick fix was from my team and not the GitLab team, so in the next release, if an automatic deployment feature would be available in GitLab, then that would be good because, in Visual Studio, you can do that with just one click of a button.

I've been using GitLab for almost four years.

As of now, we don't have any issues with GitLab stability-wise. We never faced any critical issues, so everything's going smoothly.

GitLab is a scalable solution.

We didn't use the technical support for GitLab because there are specific people within our organization that we can contact about issues, for example, access issues or permissions, and they give us access to the folders.

We haven't used any other build automation product other than GitLab.

We found the initial setup for GitLab very straightforward. We're developers, so we develop the code, then push that code to our branch. We have a moderator who keeps track of the testing process, so from our side, we already have the steps and what needs to be done and written, so we follow those steps to set up GitLab.

The implementation of GitLab was done in-house within my company.

As I work in a vast enterprise, I'm unsure about the licensing cost for GitLab. It's the management team that takes care of that.

I'm a developer, so I write all the code from scratch, but I don't use predefined platforms. I've been using GitLab and Visual Studio, though.

As GitLab is only used within my team, only five people use it.

My team uses GitLab almost every day, then when a project is complete, my team pushes it back into GitHub.

My team is an end-user of GitLab.

Regarding recommending GitLab to others, I'm a developer of data science solutions, so I mostly do end-user tasks rather than developer tasks. As of now, nothing was so bad about GitLab, and I didn't come across any significant hardships in using the solution. For a person like me who uses resources in a bigger enterprise, there shouldn't be problems using GitLab. If you're part of a small company, there could be some issues.

My rating for GitLab is seven 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. 

We are using GitLab for code management. We put code onto their servers. This allows developers to have a centralized place for code collaboration.

GitLab has helped our company save time. In our current project, we have split the job into two parts, one team is working on one particular feature and when done the solution merges the code together. Every two weeks we can release a new APK. We have the latest code in development so we don't need to merge code manually.

The solution receives frequent updates, it is always improving.

The most valuable feature of GitLab is the automatic merging of code.

I have been using GitLab for approximately seven years.

GitLab is highly stable.

The scalability of GitLab is good.

All developers are using GitLab in my company.

I plan to increase the usage of the solution in the future.

I rate the support from GitLab a four out of five.

Positive

I have previously used Bitbucket and Filezilla.

The initial setup of GitLab is easy.

There are different licensing options available, including a free limited-user license.

We evaluated other options before choosing GitLab.

One person can do the maintenance of the solution.

My advice to others is for them to use GitLab for managing their code.

I rate GitLab a nine out of ten.

Our company is a partner and installs the solution for clients who manage their ACD and DevOps pipelines. 

We have 700 developers who use the solution, Microsoft's integration, and SharePoint for uploading. 

The solution's service delivery model is fantastic. 

Integrations connect to the cloud server and are easy to use. 

The solution offers good security and stability. 

The solution should again offer an on-premises deployment option. In the past, an on-premises solution was offered that used to sync with the cloud-based solution. We would like that option to return because many industries are interested in offline uploads and pathways. 

The solution should integrate Web 3.0 and provide better system transactions.

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The initial setup is simple. 

You can immediately start using the solution as soon as you subscribe. 

The solution is based on a subscription model and is reasonably priced. 

Many options are available in the database but a few uncommon options that our company actually liked have been phased out. If those options return, the solution will be fantastic. 

Our company subscribes to the premium tier which includes security. It would be nice to offer security as an add-on at lower tiers so more users have access to these advanced features. 

I rate the cost an eight out of ten. 

I recommend the solution and rate it an eight out of ten. 

During the development environment, we have a different number of developers, close to five. So each of them will have a different project. Maybe some of them do it in one project, but their assignment or the activity they are doing may be different, so they will do their activity and then they will push it to the GitLab. If there is an amendment or update required, they will pull it from GitLab and if they do their activity again, they will push it. 

GitLab also does the merging . The merging feature makes it easy later on for the deployment.

I would like to see security increased in the future. A secure environment is very important.

I have been using GitLab for the past seven years.

The cloud provides good stability for GitLab.

GitLab is scalable. I think they have their own actually premium services. So, there are some functionalities and features that may be added on top of the free version.

The initial setup of GitLab is easy and straightforward. You do not need to be a deployment expert. It can be done by the managers or directors. 

GitLab can be done in-house but we are using CloudWatch. All you need is to have a free account.

The initial setup cost is excellent and you can add the premium features later.

Using GitLab is important to help provide a more secure and reliable environment for developers working with information in the cloud. GitLab brings a level of safety. I would rate GitLab a ten out of ten.

GitLab's best features are continuous integration and fast deployment.

GitLab's UI could be improved. In the next version, the documentation of the migrations steps should be better.

I've been working with GitLab for six years.

GitLab is very stable.

GitLab is scalable.

GitLab's technical support is quick and responsive.

Positive

The initial setup is pretty simple for GitLab as a service, but it's more complex for a hosted solution.

GitLab is comparatively expensive, but it provides value because it's feature-rich. I would rate its pricing four out of five.

I would rate GitLab nine out of ten.

GitLab is for professional teams, and it has some abilities in the user interface that are interesting to me. 

The look of the user interface is good. I have seen many features here that I don't see in BitBucket.

We like the automatic deployment for different environments. For example, if you want to deploy your application for the Azure system, Azure Cloud, you have the default configuration for them. That's true for Amazon or a VM, for example, as well. 

They provide default templates for products.

It is an easy setup.

The solution is stable.

It scales well.

I have a free version. It is open-source.

Authentication can be a problem when you have an application and you want to configure it with them. I used Spring Cloud config and to connect that to GitLab was so hard. It took hours for me to configure that.

I've been using the solution for two years. 

The product is perfectly stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution is scalable. It easily expands. 

I have two projects. In my personal experience, for my own project, it's a scalable system for e-commerce mobile microservice spaces for event-driven e-commerce systems that are using GitLab.

I've never requested the assistance of technical support.

I'm also familiar with Bitbucket, although I don't use it right now. 

The solution is quite simple to set up. 

I'm actually proficient. I'm not sure if a beginner user would have issues. It's likely okay for them.

The only difficult part may be the authentication configuration. It's a specific thing and not very common. 

I didn't use an integrator. It is easily deployed in-house. 

I don't need a license. I use the free version, and that is perfectly fine for me. 

I always use the latest version of GitLab. I don't check the version number.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate it a ten out of ten. I'm happy with its capabilities. 

The most valuable functionality of GitLab, for me, is the DevOps. Besides the normal source control based on Git, I find the Auto DevOps features most important in the solution.

As GitLab is not perfect, what needs improvement in the solution is the Wiki feature of the groups or the repertories because currently, it's not searchable by default. You'll need an indexing service such as Elasticsearch to make it searchable, and that requires too much work, so for me, it's the main feature that should be improved in GitLab.

In the next version of the solution, from the top of my head, the documentation could be improved. Besides the Wiki, it would be good if there's documentation that would be automatically generated based on the code repository. In other words, there should be some tutorials from GitLab for developers in the next release.

I've been using GitLab for almost three years.

GitLab is a pretty stable solution, and on a scale of one to ten, with one being the worst and ten being the best, I'm rating its stability a ten. My team just learned some details about the configuration of GitLab, so it's now tuned up, and right now, there's no problem with the stability of the platform.

In terms of GitLab scalability, based on its features, it's supposed to scale easily enough geographically, but my company hasn't tried scaling it yet. It shouldn't be a big problem to scale the solution.

In terms of the technical support for GitLab, I mainly use the forums and support sites of the solution. I don't use the direct technical support line of GitLab.

The initial setup for GitLab is simple mainly because of all its features that allow you to make a startup instance of the solution simpler and quicker, and that's very good.

In terms of the pricing for GitLab, on a scale of one to five, with one being expensive and five being cheap, I'm rating pricing for the solution a four. It could still be cheaper because right now, my company has a small team, and sometimes it's difficult to use a paid product for a small team. You'd hope the team will grow and scale, but currently, you're paying a high license fee for a small team. I'm referring to the GitLab license that has premium features and will give you all features. This can be a problem for management to approve the high price of the license for a team this small.

We evaluated Azure DevOps, but we liked the style of how things are built up inside GitLab for the end-user and the developer more compared to Azure DevOps, though Azure DevOps is also a very good choice.

I'm using the latest version of GitLab.

My company has a small team and only has six users of GitLab.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is the worst and ten is the best, my rating for GitLab, in general, is nine. My company likes the solution very much, especially over Azure DevOps.

I would recommend GitLab for others to use.

My company is a customer of GitLab.

I'm part of the application development team comprising 10-12 developers and I have used GitLab for configuration and version management. We have also used it for DevOps, but I have not been involved in the DevOps side. My work with GitLab involved basic version management (i.e. checking in, checking out, merging) and related features. 

I have also used GitLab for doing remote builds, which is when you check in and it triggers the build on the application remotely. For example, we have a YAML script that has been written for performing builds on GitLab automatically and when that script gets executed, it performs the builds and copies them to the destination folder. All of this gets triggered from GitLab.

I like that you can use GitLab as a double-sided solution for both DevOps and version management. It's a good product for working in these two areas, and the user interface makes it easy to understand.

There was a problem with the build environment when we were looking at developing iOS applications. iOS build require Mac machines and there are no Mac machines provided by GitLab in their cloud. So to build for mobile iOS application, we needed to use our own Mac machine within our own infrastructure. If GitLab were to provide a feature such that an iOS application could also be built through GitLab directly, that would be great.

I have used GitLab for two months.

It's stable. 

Once all the scripts are written, it becomes scalable. When an application gets deployed and people start using it, it's on the cloud and so it becomes scalable. All the applications that we design are deliberately written in such a way as to be scalable.

We only used GitLab for a short duration, so there was not much scope or need for contacting technical support.

The setup is straightforward to an extent because the part of GitLab that I was using for version management was similar to other tools that I have used such as Git and SVN. When I use GitLab, it's more or less the same process and workflow as these other tools, so there wasn't a big learning curve for me.

Our application was an accumulation of multiple applications, so there were multiple builds happening at any given time. GitLab would process the builds and it would take only a couple of hours for us to deploy the builds on the cloud.

The other thing is that the GitLab user interface is good, so it's easy to understand. You, yourself, can learn it simply by exploring and trying it out. Then there's a lot of help that is available on the GitLab website on how to use it. 

For the implementation, we had a DevOps engineer who was the primary technical guy, and then the others were developers and related entities performing the development.

Personally, I can't say much about the return on investment because the licensing and costs and everything have been borne by our customer. We were just using it. But I think that the return on investment must be good, and it might be one of the reasons why the customer is using it for all their projects.

I'm not aware of the licensing costs because those were covered by the customer.

I can certainly recommend GitLab. It's a good product and I would rate it an eight out of ten.