Bitbucket Server (discontinued) vs. Sourcetree

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)
Score 6.0 out of 10
N/A
Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) from Atlassian was a self-hosted source code management solution. The product is no longer available for sale, and support for existing licenses ended in 2024.N/A
Sourcetree
Score 7.1 out of 10
N/A
Sourcetree, by Atlassian, is a free version control client for Mac and Windows that works with Git and Mercurial repositories. It's distributed version control allows developers to visualize code, review changesets, stash, cherry-pick between branches or commit with a single click.N/A
Pricing
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)Sourcetree
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)Sourcetree
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)Sourcetree
Features
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)Sourcetree
Version Control Software Features
Comparison of Version Control Software Features features of Product A and Product B
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)
-
Ratings
Sourcetree
6.3
Ratings
26% below category average
Branching and Merging00 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Version History00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Version Control Collaboration Tools00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Pull Requests00 Ratings5.00 Ratings
Code Review Tools00 Ratings6.00 Ratings
Issue Tracking Integration00 Ratings3.00 Ratings
Branch Protection00 Ratings5.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)Sourcetree
Small Businesses
Git
Git
Score 10.0 out of 10
Git
Git
Score 10.0 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Git
Git
Score 10.0 out of 10
Git
Git
Score 10.0 out of 10
Enterprises
Perforce P4
Perforce P4
Score 7.7 out of 10
Perforce P4
Perforce P4
Score 7.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)Sourcetree
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(0 ratings)
6.1
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
5.0
(0 ratings)
3.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Bitbucket Server (discontinued)Sourcetree
Likelihood to Recommend
Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) is suitable for departments or teams with the capacity to manage and support their own products and the availability to implement the tool on their own infrastructure. Bitbucket Server (formerly Stash) enables a good framework based on git to integrate the development cycle and to handle anything from a minor group of users and repositories to an extended usage with multiple users and roles collaborating in different projects.
Read full review
I prefer to work visually and use the tool for merge and rebase operations. It helps when managing a large number of repos.
Read full review
Pros
  • Projects & Permissions - Stash keeps you and your developers productive by providing a way to structure your repositories and manage permissions via a simple, yet powerful user interface. Stash is very easy to use, manage & administer.
  • Essentially Stash gives two versions of interfaces to work with.
  • Stash Repository hosted on a server.
  • Atlassian SourceTree.
  • Atlassian Sourcetree is a tool to work with a code in stash. The two 'web' and 'desktop' versions make working with code user friendly, intuitive and comprehensive.
  • Connectivity to JIRA - Stash keeps track of all issues associated with commits. Users can use Stash to quickly see all issues associated with a commit, or use the Source tab on JIRA issues for an aggregate view of all the code changes that are related to a specific JIRA issue. With this information available, your development team saves time when tracking particular bug fixes or improvements.
Read full review
  • Allows to manage GIT repositories in an intuitive and simple user interface
  • Visually represents complicated workflows and branching
  • Integrates with most well known GIT repository managing services
Read full review
Cons
  • You can't allow users to create new repositories without them being full admins of a whole project
  • There's not a way to limit who can merge a pull request (e.g. allow only the author to merge) outside of branch permissions
  • Some settings like default reviewers can't be easily copied to different repositories (without setting default reviewers at the project level, which we don't want to do because a single project has multiple team's code under it)
Read full review
  • Refreshing of the interface after a commit or merge
  • All elements being consistent with the repo status
  • Select all button on Trach status on different branches
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Because we're so locked in, it's likely we'll be using Bitbucket Server for a while, unfortunately.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
The usability of its interface is pretty straight forward when it comes to creating projects and repositories, but when you have to dive into finer grained portions of the UI things can get tricky. If you are used to using tools like GitHub or Gitlab -- Bitbucket is just different enough to be a bother.
Read full review
We help new users onboard quickly and then use Sourcetree to handle their day-to-day SCM needs for managing CIs (Configuration Items). We can visually show management the branching and commit history to show the flow and pace of development.
Read full review
Support Rating
Never really needed any support as the application is very easy to set up and maintain. Any questions we had were well documented in their online documentation, and community forum.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
We migrated several of our applications to BitBucket from legacy Team Foundation Server, and the experience has been significantly better. It's easy to use and plenty flexible. Other solutions such as GitHub are also good, but we needed to keep everything on-prem due to constraints around our industry and company, though we are currently re-evaluating whether we can move to something cloud based in the future.
Read full review
I tried GitHub Desktop for a couple of days, but it is just not visual enough for me. It has no graph display for branches. Too much clicking is required to get info that the Sourcetree UI shows by default. Sourcetree gives you that "Big Picture" dashboard. GitHub Desktop seems unfinished to me due to its lack of this overview screen.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • In positive form, having Stash over not having it at all has provided us with a superior repository system over trying to push to some local server instance and manage branches/merging from our local machines.
  • There are no real negatives to using Stash, its only problem is that there are competitors out there that can offer additional features.
Read full review
  • In my experience, using Sourcetree actually slows down development if you're the average developer needing to do simple git actions. Getting set up is fast, but the learning curve to use the tool is just too steep if you're just looking to push, pull, commit, branch etc.
  • Sourcetree is not implemented by default at our company, but is recommended as we primarily use Atlassian products. However the lack of integration with other Atlassian products means that this git GUI doesn't give any more or less ROI for your Atlassian ecosystem compared to another git GUI tool.
  • For auditing and exploring history Sourcetree can be very helpful. Having all of this information in one place with a plethora of actions and tools at your disposal means you can audit repos much quicker than any other git GUI or online repo explorer.
Read full review
ScreenShots