Grid℠ for Version Control Systems | Winter 2016

Browse Report

Version Control Systems

Products shown on the Grid for Version Control Systems have received a minimum of 10 reviews/ratings in data gathered by January 05, 2016. Products are ranked by customer satisfaction (based on user reviews) and market presence (based on market share, vendor size, and social impact) and placed into four categories on the Grid:
  • Leaders offer version control systems products that are rated highly by G2 Crowd users and have substantial scale, market share, and global support and service resources. Leaders products include: GitHub, Git, and BitBucket
  • High Performers provide products that are highly rated by their users, but have not yet achieved the market share and scale of the vendors in the Leader category.
  • Contenders have significant market presence and resources, but their products have received below average user satisfaction ratings or have not yet received a sufficient number of reviews to validate their products.
  • Niche products do not have the market presence of the Leaders. They may have been rated positively on customer satisfaction, but have not yet received enough reviews to validate their success. Niche products include: AccuRev, Mercurial, and Subversion

Report Summary

The Winter 2016 Version Control System Grid℠ Report features over 250 version control system reviews and revealed these high level insights about the version control system market as a whole:

  • Ecosystem is invaluable — Users of all products emphasized the importance of a thriving ecosystem for version control tools. Users pointed to better collaboration, more documentation, and a variety of plug-ins as benefits of a vibrant ecosystem.

  • Version control features mastered — Products across the board were praised for their core version control features. Users enjoyed the flexibility version control systems give distributed teams to work on a single project cohesively.

  • Command lines split users — User satisfaction with command lines helped to separate some version control systems from the pack: Some products earned high marks for this feature, whereas others received low scores from their users.

  • Performance issues across the board — All products in the version control systems category received negative comments in regards to performance. Common user-cited issues include sluggish speeds, syncing errors, server downtime, and integration problems.

    • Version Control Systems Grid℠ Scores

    The table below shows the satisfaction and market presence scores that determine vendor placement on the Grid℠. To learn more about each of the products, please see the Executive Summaries section.

    Leaders

    # of Reviews Satisfaction (normalized) Market Presence G2 Score
    GitHub
    103
    95
    69
    82
    Git
    56
    84
    68
    76
    BitBucket
    45
    61
    60
    60

    Niche

    # of Reviews Satisfaction (normalized) Market Presence G2 Score
    AccuRev
    12
    33
    45
    39
    Mercurial
    17
    48
    21
    34
    Subversion
    12
    14
    46
    30

    Grid℠ Methodology

    Version Control Systems Definition

    Version control systems, also known as revision control or source control, is used to track changes to software development projects and allow team members to change and collaborate on the same files. Version control systems allows developers to automatically track their work, see recent changes and who made them, and revert to previous versions of a project when needed. Changes are tracked in the background and different versions of a project are kept in a repository (often referred to as the “repo”). Version control systems also allow for experimentation through branching. This allows developers to “branch off” of the main set of files, or the “trunk,” in order to commit changes that may break things in other parts of the code. Developers can then merge the code back into the trunk once they are comfortable with their work. Version control systems integrate with a variety of software development tools, including integrated development environments, build automation software, and platform as a service providers.

    Version control systems are offered as both open source and proprietary software. Most proprietary products are based on one of the open source offerings but provide a more user-friendly interface and some additional collaboration functionality. Version control systems are either centralized or distributed. Centralized version control systems have a single, centralized repository that is connected to several devices, providing a simple structure and more control over users and access. The distributed version control system is a newer approach to version control and allows each user to have their own copy of the repository, including all the files, directories, and history of the project. This removes the need for a server and enhances the process in terms of speed and reliability. The scale and scope of the project, number of developers, goal, and budget affect the decision between open-source and proprietary and between a centralized or distributed version control system.

    Grid Rating Methodology

    The Grid represents the democratic voice of real software users, rather than the subjective opinion of one analyst. G2 Crowd rates version control systems algorithmically based on data sourced from product reviews shared by G2 Crowd users and data aggregated from online sources and social networks.

    Technology buyers can use the Grid to help them quickly select the best version control system for their business and to find peers with similar experiences. For vendors, media, investors, and analysts, the Grid provides benchmarks for product comparison and market trend analysis.

    Grid Scoring Methodology

    G2 Crowd rates products and vendors based on ratings and reviews gathered from our user community, as well as data aggregated from online sources and social networks. We apply a unique, patent-pending algorithm to this data to calculate the product strength and vendor market presence scores in real time.

    The satisfaction rating is affected by the following (in order of importance):

    • Overall Customer Satisfaction and Net Promoter Score (NPS) based on ratings by G2 Crowd users
    • Customer satisfaction with second-level product attributes based on user reviews
    • Popularity and statistical significance based on number of ratings and reviews received by G2 Crowd

    The market presence score is affected by the following (in order of importance):

    • Number of employees for product and parent company (based on social networks and public sources)
    • Market share based on share of voice including number of ratings and reviews received
    • Vendor momentum based on web traffic and Google search trends
    • Product social impact based on Klout score and Twitter followers
    • Vendor social impact based on Klout score, Twitter, and LinkedIn followers
    • Revenue and year over year revenue growth rate (if available)
    • Age of company (number of years in operation)
    • Employee satisfaction and engagement (based on social network ratings)

    Rating Changes and Dynamics

    The ratings in this report are based on a snapshot of the user reviews and social data collected by G2 Crowd up through January 5, 2016. The ratings may change as the products are further developed, the vendors grow, and as additional opinions are shared by users. G2 Crowd updates the ratings on its website in real-time as additional data is received, and we will update this report at least twice per year. By improving their products and support and/or by having more satisfied customer voices heard, contenders may become leaders and niche vendors may become high performers.

    Trust

    Keeping our ratings unbiased is our top priority. We require the use of a LinkedIn account to validate a G2 Crowd user’s identity and employer and verify all reviews manually. We do not allow users to rate their employer’s products or those of their employer’s competitors. Though we share reviews from business partners (they often contain valuable content), we filter out business partner ratings in our aggregate ratings to avoid bias.

    Our G2 Crowd staff does not add any subjective input to the ratings, which are determined algorithmically based on data aggregated from publicly available online sources and social networks. Vendors cannot influence their ratings by spending time or money with us. Only the opinion of real users and data from public sources factor into the ratings.

    Grid Inclusion Criteria

    All products in a G2 Crowd category that have at least 10 reviews from real users of the product will be included in the Grid. Inviting other users, such as colleagues and peers to join G2 Crowd and share authentic product reviews will accelerate this process.

    If a version control system is not yet listed on G2 Crowd and it fits the market definition above, then users are encouraged to suggest its addition to our Version Control Systems category.

    Product Executive Summaries

    Executive profiles and detailed charts are included for products with 10 or more reviews.
    GitHub
    Git
    BitBucket
    AccuRev
    Mercurial
    Subversion
    GitHub
    GitHub
    102 ratings
    4.7 out of 5 stars

    Vendor Information

    • Vendor: GitHub
    • Location: San Francisco, CA
    • Founded: 2008
    • 2015 Revenue: n/a (private company)
    • Employees (Listed on LinkedIn): 433
    • Website: github.com

    Executive Summary

    GitHub has been named a Leader based on receiving a high customer satisfaction score and having a large market presence. GitHub has the largest Market Presence and received the highest Satisfaction score among version control systems products. 96% of users rated it 4 or 5 stars and 94% of users believe GitHub is headed in the right direction.

    GitHub is a Git repository hosting service accessed through a web browser. GitHub offers features in version control and source code management.

    In review ratings and short-answer responses, users liked GitHub's:

  • Collaboration functionality. GitHub users praised the product’s focus on collaboration, saying the product makes it easy to review code and work together with teams to edit code; users also called it a great resource for new developers to learn from one another.
  • Version control. Users called GitHub’s version control system fantastic and the de facto tool for software version control.
  • Interface. Users enjoyed GitHub’s user interface, calling it clean, sleek, straightforward, and user-friendly.

    • In review ratings and short-answer responses, users disliked GitHub's:

  • Learning curve. GitHub users said the product can be complex and confusing for new and non-technical users, specifically when handling command lines.
  • Mobile access. Some users were frustrated in GitHub’s mobile access, citing the lack of a native mobile app, as well as third-party mobile apps’ inferiority in comparison to the desktop version.
  • Issue management. Some users were disappointed in GitHub’s issue management, calling these features too simplistic.

    • Users called the tool powerful, reliable, secure, and said it provides an overall excellent set of tools for developers. GitHub is a universally accepted product with many integration options, users said. GitHub users were also impressed with the vibrancy of the product’s community and enjoyed connecting with other developers. Users also highlighted GitHub’s free pricing tier for developers working on open-source projects as beneficial. Some users were disappointed in GitHub’s lack of free private repositories, but added that paid pricing tiers are affordable.

    Review Breakdown

    Top Industries Represented

    Git
    Git
    56 ratings
    4.7 out of 5 stars

    Vendor Information

    • Vendor: Git
    • Location: Open-Source
    • Founded: 2005
    • 2015 Revenue: Open-Source
    • Employees (Listed on LinkedIn): n/a
    • Website: git-scm.com

    Executive Summary

    Git has been named a Leader based on receiving a high customer satisfaction score and having a large market presence. 98% of users rated it 4 or 5 stars and 87% of users believe Git is headed in the right direction.

    Git is an open-source version control system. Git's distributed revision control can be used for projects of all sizes and workflows.

    In review ratings and short-answer responses, users liked Git's:

  • Branches. Users called Git’s branching ability first class, citing its overall ease of use, branch management, and the ability to branch locally and then sync remotely.
  • Version control. Git users enjoyed the product’s version control system, calling it mature, advanced and powerful. Users also appreciated its ability to give distributed teams the flexibility to work on a single source code simultaneously with minimal interruptions.
  • Community. Git’s community is a large, healthy ecosystem of users that provides support and continuously contributes new features, reviewers said.

    • In review ratings and short-answer responses, users disliked Git's:

  • Commands. Git users were frustrated with the product’s commands, calling them inconsistent, tricky, and poorly organized; users also said their obscure syntax makes the learning process difficult.
  • Sub-modules. Users said Git's sub-modules overall do not perform well, calling them lackluster and an afterthought.
  • Learning curve. Some Git users were frustrated with the product’s learning curve, calling it steep, tricky, painful, and difficult for new developers to handle.

    • Overall, reviewers enjoyed Git. Users referred to the product as powerful, reliable, structured, and the industry standard for version control. Git is widely adopted, users said, which means developers can easily connect with one another on the platform. Users enjoyed that Git is distributed, saying it allows for great flexibility and cited the ability to work offline and merge code changes at a later time as beneficial. Git’s content management features, specifically status updates and the management of a project’s source code and branches, earned praise from users. Users disagreed on Git’s integration capabilities, with some praising its variety of integrations and others citing painful setup processes. Users were disappointed in Git’s poor documentation, calling it unclear and in need of improvement.

    Review Breakdown

    Top Industries Represented

    BitBucket
    BitBucket
    45 ratings
    4.1 out of 5 stars

    Vendor Information

    • Vendor: Atlassian
    • Location: Sydney, Australia
    • Founded: 2002
    • 2015 Revenue: n/a (private company)
    • Employees (Listed on LinkedIn): 1.66k
    • Website: www.atlassian.com

    Executive Summary

    BitBucket has been named a Leader based on receiving a high customer satisfaction score and having a large market presence. 78% of users rated it 4 or 5 stars and 83% of users believe BitBucket is headed in the right direction.

    BitBucket is a Mercurial and Git repository hosting service accessed through a browser. BitBucket offers features to help teams code, manage, and collaborate on projects.

    In review ratings and short-answer responses, users liked BitBucket's:

  • Price. Users were impressed with BitBucket’s pricing model, citing the product’s free private repository plans.
  • Integrations. BitBucket integrates with a variety of products, including the Atlassian software suite, which users said makes the product a comprehensive and flexible tool.
  • Set-up. BitBucket has an easy setup process and is up and running quickly, users said. This shows in BitBucket’s above average ease of set-up satisfaction score of 88% (avg. 87%).

    • In review ratings and short-answer responses, users disliked BitBucket's:

  • Interface. Users were disappointed in BitBucket’s user interface, calling it unpolished, complicated, hard to navigate, and especially confusing for new users.
  • Performance. Some BitBucket users said the product experiences slow web page and repository cloning speeds, as well as unresponsive servers.
  • Documentation and tutorials. Some users were frustrated with the lack of video tutorials and documentation in BitBucket.

    • Users called BitBucket easy to set up, comprehensive, and a great tool for hosting and maintaining source code repositories. Users enjoyed that BitBucket promotes collaboration, and specifically enjoyed the ability the work on projects remotely and still be connected. BitBucket’s branch and commit management, especially the ability to quickly overview branches and commits, earned high marks from users as well. Users disagreed on BitBucket’s bug and issue tracker, with some users saying the feature helps to quickly track issues in a centralized location, while others felt the feature is too simple and underwhelming. Users were also disappointed in BitBucket’s lack of community in comparison to similar tools.

    Review Breakdown

    Top Industries Represented

    AccuRev
    AccuRev
    12 ratings
    4.0 out of 5 stars

    Vendor Information

    • Vendor: Micro Focus
    • Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
    • Founded: 1976
    • 2015 Revenue: n/a (private company)
    • Employees (Listed on LinkedIn): 2.38k
    • Website: www.microfocus.com

    Executive Summary

    AccuRev has been named a Niche Vendor based on receiving a relatively low customer satisfaction score and having a small market presence. 83% of users rated it 4 or 5 stars and 58% of users believe AccuRev is headed in the right direction.

    AccuRev is a version control and software configuration tool. The product is specifically designed for large agile projects.

    In review ratings and short-answer responses, users liked AccuRev's:

  • Tracking. Users enjoyed AccuRev’s tracking features, which give users the ability to organize and track streams, branch history, revisions, and overall changes.
  • Version control. AccuRev users called the product’s version control features easy to use, and cited the ability to store old versions and review differences between versions as specifically beneficial.
  • Branches. Users enjoyed AccuRev’s branch features, specifically the ability to create new branches from the main version and AccuRev’s visual representation of branch history.

    • In review ratings and short-answer responses, users disliked AccuRev's:

  • Performance. AccuRev sometimes experiences performance issues, users said, citing server downtime and overall slow speeds.
  • Price. Some AccuRev users felt the product is too costly.
  • Changes. Some users said AccuRev could have a better change list and does not always promote changes correctly.

    • Users called AccuRev an easy to use and flexible version control system. Users enjoyed the tool's merging system, calling it clear and simple. Users were also impressed with AccuRev’s user interface, with users describing it as user-friendly and structured clearly. Additionally, users said AccuRev’s command lines are powerful, easy to script, and help automate tasks. Some users said that AccuRev has a steep learning curve, citing the products different terminology in comparison to other version control systems.

    Review Breakdown

    Top Industries Represented

    Mercurial
    Mercurial
    17 ratings
    4.2 out of 5 stars

    Vendor Information

    • Vendor: Mercurial Open Source Project
    • Location: Open-Source
    • Founded: 2005
    • 2016 Revenue: Open-Source
    • Employees (Listed on LinkedIn): n/a
    • Website: mercurial.selenic.com

    Executive Summary

    Mercurial has been named a Niche Vendor based on receiving a relatively low customer satisfaction score and having a small market presence. 88% of users rated it 4 or 5 stars and 71% of users believe Mercurial is headed in the right direction.

    Mercurial is a free version control system. Mercurial helps teams with distributed collaborative development features.

    In review ratings and short-answer responses, users liked Mercurial's:

  • Command lines. Mercurial users said the product’s command lines are carefully thought out, are intuitive, and provide great help messages when command line issues arise.
  • Extensions. Users enjoyed Mercurial extensions, saying there are a variety of extensions available and calling the extension writing process easy.
  • Cross-platform support. Users were impressed with Mercurial’s cross-platform support for Mac, PC, and Linux.

    • In review ratings and short-answer responses, users disliked Mercurial's:

  • Lack of ecosystem. Users were disappointed that Mercurial has few integrations, a small community, and an overall lack of adoption in comparison to other version control systems.
  • Terminology. Some Mercurial users said that product uses different terminology in comparison to other version control systems, which sometimes causes confusion.
  • Hosting. Mercurial’s hosting options are disappointing and limit users to self-hosting projects or using a third-party repository hosting service, users said.

    • Users called Mercurial an easy to use, scalable, and powerful version control system. Overall, users said Mercurial has good version control tools, and claimed users do not need to be a command line specialist to effectively use the product. Users enjoyed Mercurial’s online tutorials and documentation, and called the product’s overall user experience pleasant. Users had a difference in opinion over Mercurial’s branch system, with some users calling its branches simple and powerful, and others calling them not polished and lacking features in comparison to other version control tools. Users were also disappointed in Mercurial’s repository cloning, calling the feature slow and lacking the ability to clone only snippets of a repository.

    Review Breakdown

    Top Industries Represented

    Subversion
    Subversion
    12 ratings
    3.4 out of 5 stars

    Vendor Information

    • Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation
    • Location: Forest Hill, MD
    • Founded: 1999
    • 2016 Revenue: n/a (private company)
    • Employees (Listed on LinkedIn): 1.2k
    • Website: www.apache.org

    Executive Summary

    Subversion has been named a Niche Vendor based on receiving a relatively low customer satisfaction score and having a small market presence. 58% of users rated it 4 or 5 stars and 50% of users believe Subversion is headed in the right direction.

    Subversion is an open-source version control system from the Apache Project. Subversion provides development teams with solutions for managing all versions of a development project.

    In review ratings and short-answer responses, users liked Subversion's:

  • Version control. Users said Subversion’s version control helps team leads manage projects, allows for distributed management, and provides a centralized and easy to control source code.
  • Open-source model. Subversion users enjoyed the product’s open-source model, which allows for a variety of community-made plug-ins and for the product to be offered at no cost to users.
  • Command lines. Users said Subversion’s command lines can do anything users need, and cited that Subversion’s Windows' support eliminates the need to push and pull code through the command line interface.

    • In review ratings and short-answer responses, users disliked Subversion's:

  • Performance. Users were frustrated with Subversion’s performance issues, citing slow speeds, sync errors, and problems naming and observing files.
  • Branch management. Users were disappointed in Subversion’s branch management, calling it insufficient and bulky.
  • Merging. Subversion users called the product’s merging function underwhelming and error-prone, specifically when merging algorithms.

    • Users said Subversion is an easy-to-use version control product that works well with teams of varying skill sets. Users found Subversion’s directory structure, which allows users to look at individual parts of a project, scalable and user-friendly. Users found Subversion’s integration features with other Apache software beneficial in the development process. Users also pointed to Subversion’s "lock safeguard" feature, which ensures no two users make updates to the same place at the same time, as a great safety net. However, some users said that some team members may ignore or forget the lock step, which could cause conflicts. Some users were also disappointed in Subversion’s inability to fetch historical logs beyond a few years.

    Review Breakdown

    Top Industries Represented

    Satisfaction Ratings

    G2 Crowd users rated version control system vendors' ability to satisfy their needs as shown in the table below.
    GitHub
    Git
    BitBucket
    AccuRev
    Mercurial
    Subversion
    Average
    Satisfaction
    Likely to Recommend
    93%
    94%
    83%
    80%
    84%
    68%
    		 84%
    Product Going in Right Direction?
    94%
    87%
    83%
    58%
    71%
    50%
    		 74%

    Satisfaction by Category

    Meets Requirements
    94%
    94%
    91%
    85%
    85%
    76%
    		 87%
    Ease of Admin
    92%
    76%
    86%
    n/a
    86%
    n/a
    		 85%
    Ease of Doing Business
    95%
    80%
    91%
    n/a
    n/a
    n/a
    		 89%
    Quality of Support
    93%
    86%
    85%
    84%
    82%
    68%
    		 83%
    Ease of Setup
    91%
    88%
    88%
    n/a
    88%
    80%
    		 87%
    Ease of Use
    91%
    78%
    84%
    85%
    95%
    82%
    		 86%
    GitHub
    Git
    BitBucket
    AccuRev
    Mercurial
    Subversion
    Average
    Net Promoter Score (NPS)
    Net Promoter Score (NPS) (Range from -100 to +100)
    83
    84
    38
    25
    35
    -17
    		 41
    *n/a is displayed when fewer than five responses were received for the question

    Customer Segments Served

    Version control systems serve a range of small, mid-market, and enterprise customers. The table below shows the breakdown by reviewers' company size.
    GitHub
    Git
    BitBucket
    AccuRev
    Mercurial
    Subversion
    Customer Segments Served
    Small Business (50 or fewer emp.) 46% 25% 40% 8% 56% 8%
    Mid-Market (51-1000 emp.) 32% 38% 30% 17% 31% 67%
    Enterprise ( >1000 emp.) 22% 36% 30% 75% 13% 25%

    Deployment and Implementation

    Deployment and implementation data for version control systems is shown below.
    GitHub
    Git
    BitBucket
    AccuRev
    Mercurial
    Subversion
    Deployment Method
    Cloud
    73%
    63%
    63%
    n/a
    33%
    n/a
    On-Premise
    27%
    38%
    38%
    n/a
    67%
    n/a

    Implementation Method

    Led by In-House Team
    100%
    100%
    100%
    n/a
    100%
    n/a
    Led by Vendor PS
    0%
    0%
    0%
    n/a
    0%
    n/a
    Led by 3rd Party
    0%
    0%
    0%
    n/a
    0%
    n/a
    *n/a is displayed when fewer than five responses were received for the question.

    User Adoption and ROI

    G2 Crowd reviewers shared their average adoption levels in the table below.
    GitHub
    Git
    BitBucket
    AccuRev
    Mercurial
    Subversion
    User Adoption
    Avg. User Adoption
    79%
    72%
    84%
    n/a
    72%
    n/a

    *n/a is displayed when fewer than five responses were received for the question.

    Market Presence

    Key data on each vendor’s overall scale and market presence is shown below.
    GitHub
    Git
    BitBucket
    AccuRev
    Mercurial
    Subversion
    Vendor Information
    Year Founded
    2008
    2005
    2002
    1976
    2005
    1999
    Revenue ($MM)
    n/a
    Open-Source
    n/a
    n/a
    Open-Source
    n/a
    Employees on LinkedIn (Vendor)
    433
    n/a
    1,656
    2,377
    n/a
    1,202
    LinkedIn Followers
    30,322
    n/a
    46,886
    11,242
    7
    13,803
    Twitter Followers (Vendor)
    Klout Score (Vendor)
    73.0
    47.0
    66.0
    57.0
    n/a
    61.0
    Alexa Web Traffic Rank
    82
    5,382
    2,739
    98,235
    585,212
    1,114

    © 2016 G2 Crowd, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form without G2 Crowd’s prior written permission. While the information in this report has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, G2 Crowd disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of such information and shall have no liability for errors, omissions, or inadequacies in such information.