GitHub’s dominance is undeniable. 

With over 100 million developers and 90% of Fortune 100 companies using the platform, it’s become the default choice for version control hosting. 

Yet this ubiquity masks an uncomfortable truth: not every development workflow fits neatly into GitHub’s collaborative model.

Let’s say your team needs SVN support or your workflow requires deep integration between version control and project management.

In both of those scenarios, GitHub may not be the best choice. 

But fear not! This comprehensive guide will cover the important things to know about trusted GitHub alternatives like GitLab, Bitbucket, Assembla and Gitea. In particular, we’ll look at how each platform addresses specific development needs. 

That way, whether you’re scaling an enterprise operation or seeking more specialized features, you’ll see how to evaluate these GitHub alternatives against your team’s unique requirements.

GitLab vs GitHub

When considering GitHub alternatives, GitLab is often the first that pops up, especially for those needing comprehensive DevOps capabilities. 

According to recent adoption metrics, GitLab has captured 66% of the self-managed Git repository market, establishing itself as the leading GitHub alternative for organizations prioritizing control over their development infrastructure.

Key differences between GitLab and GitHub

GitLab’s primary advantage lies in its native CI/CD pipeline integration which eliminates the need for external tooling. While GitHub Actions offers similar capabilities, GitLab’s approach integrates testing, deployment, and monitoring into a single platform. This unified system reduces context switching and streamlines the development process.

The platform also offers superior deployment flexibility. Unlike GitHub’s cloud-first strategy, GitLab provides genuine choice in how teams deploy their infrastructure. Organizations can opt for self-hosted installations, cloud-hosted instances, or hybrid deployments that balance control with convenience. This flexibility proves particularly valuable for enterprises with complex compliance requirements or specific infrastructure needs.

Security and Compliance Features

Both platforms offer robust security features, but their approaches differ significantly:

GitLab:

  • Built-in SAST, DAST, and container scanning
  • Integrated security dashboards
  • Compliance management tools included in core offering

GitHub:

  • Advanced security features available as premium add-ons
  • Dependabot for dependency scanning
  • Some security features locked behind enterprise tier

Cost Considerations

When examining costs, there are a few considerations to make. If you look purely at license-per-license, GitLab is significantly more expensive than GitHub ($21 vs $99 per user per month). However, self-hosting GitLab can save larger teams a significant amount of money. Teams can then optimize infrastructure costs and maintain better control over resource allocation. The downside is this requires dedicated DevOps expertise to manage effectively.

When to Choose GitLab over GitHub

GitLab is a compelling GitHub competitor for organizations prioritizing DevOps integration and seeking to consolidate their toolchain. Its unified platform offers a comprehensive solution for the entire DevSecOps lifecycle, including planning, source code management, CI/CD pipelines, security scanning, and advanced deployments. This integrated approach can be particularly beneficial for enterprises that need to maintain strict control over their development infrastructure and security practices. 

However, cost considerations are important when evaluating GitLab, especially for larger teams. While GitLab offers a comprehensive feature set, its pricing is notably higher than some competitors, with its Ultimate plan being significantly more expensive than even comparable enterprise-level offerings. That said, GitLab can be a solid choice for organizations that can fully utilize its comprehensive feature set and leverage self-hosting to offset costs.

GitHub vs Bitbucket

With over 83% of Fortune 500 companies using Atlassian tools, Bitbucket’s seamless integration with Jira and Confluence makes it an attractive option for enterprise teams seeking a consolidated workflow integration.

Key differences between Bitbucket and GitHub 

Bitbucket’s strongest advantage lies in that native integration with Atlassian’s suite of development tools. While GitHub offers Jira integration through marketplace apps, Bitbucket has the advantage of built-in synchronization with Jira, Confluence, and Trello. This integration extends to features like automatic issue tracking links and synchronized user management across all Atlassian products.

Another significant differentiator is Bitbucket’s approach to repository privacy. While GitHub charges for private repositories at most tiers, Bitbucket offers unlimited private repositories even in its free tier, making it particularly attractive for small teams and startups that need to keep their code private without incurring additional costs.

Security and Compliance Features 

Both platforms prioritize security but implement it differently:

Bitbucket:

  • Branch permissions and granular access controls
  • Built-in IP allowlisting
  • Enforced two-step verification
  • Automated security scanning through Bitbucket Pipelines

GitHub:

  • More robust dependency scanning through Dependabot
  • Advanced security features in enterprise tier
  • Larger security ecosystem through marketplace integrations
  • Superior secret scanning capabilities

Cost Considerations 

Bitbucket’s pricing model offers significant advantages for small to medium-sized teams. The free tier supports up to 5 users with unlimited private repositories, while GitHub’s free tier limits private repository features. At the premium level, Bitbucket Premium ($7.50 per user/month) costs notably less than GitHub Team ($4 per user/month), though GitHub offers more features at this tier.

When calculating total costs, consider that Bitbucket’s integration with other Atlassian tools might reduce overall tooling expenses for teams already using Jira or Confluence. However, teams requiring advanced CI/CD capabilities might find additional costs through Bitbucket Pipelines usage.

When to Choose Bitbucket over GitHub 

If you’re already invested in the Atlassian ecosystem, Bitbucket will be one of the best GitHub alternatives. Its native integration with Jira and Confluence creates a workflow that’s hard to replicate with GitHub’s third-party integrations. Small teams requiring private repositories will find Bitbucket’s free tier particularly attractive.

That said, teams that rely heavily on open-source collaboration or require extensive community features might find GitHub’s platform more suitable. While Bitbucket supports public repositories, GitHub’s larger community and more robust social features make it better suited for open-source projects and public collaboration.

GitHub vs Assembla

While GitHub may be the dominant tool for open-source collaboration, Assembla takes a different approach. Instead, we focus on unifying source code and project management on a single platform to better support integrated technical and creative teams. 

Key differences between Assembla and GitHub 

Assembla’s primary advantage is its support for multiple version control systems, including Git, SVN, and Perforce. This flexibility becomes crucial as GitHub sunsets SVN support, leaving teams with legacy SVN repositories searching for alternatives. Assembla’s ability to host different VCS types in a single platform simplifies infrastructure management and reduces tool sprawl.

Another key differentiator is Assembla’s hands-on support model. While GitHub offers standard support channels, Assembla provides dedicated DevOps assistance, helping teams optimize their cloud environments and resolve technical challenges quickly. This support includes infrastructure customization and performance tuning that goes beyond typical platform hosting.

Security and Compliance Features 

Both platforms approach security differently:

Assembla:

  • Automatic secret scanning in commits
  • Two-factor authentication and SAML SSO
  • Granular role-based access control
  • Customizable security policies at repository level

GitHub:

  • Larger security ecosystem through marketplace
  • Advanced security features in enterprise tier
  • Dependabot for dependency management
  • GitHub-specific security advisories

Cost Considerations 

While Assembla’s tier pricing starts higher than GitHub’s base tiers, our costs include dedicated support and infrastructure optimization. This replaces additional tooling or expertise needed with GitHub and other GitHub competitors. Assembla’s ability to host multiple VCS types can actually reduce total costs by eliminating the need for separate hosting solutions.

Teams should consider the hidden costs of self-managing infrastructure and support when comparing platforms. Assembla’s managed services often prove more cost-effective than maintaining internal DevOps teams for similar capabilities.

When to Choose Assembla over GitHub 

Assembla presents the strongest case for organizations needing multi-VCS support or requiring hands-on platform assistance. Our managed cloud environments particularly suit teams that want to focus on development rather than infrastructure management. The platform excels for enterprises with complex requirements around compliance, security, and customization.

Consider Assembla when your organization needs: 

  • Advanced project management capabilities integrated with version control
  • Ongoing technical support
  • Maintains repositories across different version control systems

Even More GitHub Alternatives

Development teams often face scenarios that require different approaches to version control itself, from self-hosted solutions to alternative VCS. Let’s explore options that address specific workflow needs and organizational requirements.

GitHub vs Gitea

Gitea is one of the most recent GitHub competitors and it represents a fundamentally different approach to version control hosting. It is lightweight, self-managed, and focused on core functionalities While GitHub provides a feature-rich cloud platform, Gitea gives teams complete control over their development infrastructure with minimal resource requirements.

It is an extremely lightweight approach—so much so that it can run on modest hardware like Raspberry Pi. This approach makes it particularly attractive for teams that need private, on-premise source control without extensive DevOps or financial resources. 

Gitea’s open-source nature means the primary costs come from infrastructure and maintenance rather than licensing. For small to medium teams, this can represent substantial savings compared to GitHub’s per-user pricing model, though organizations must factor in the overhead of managing their own infrastructure.

GitHub vs SVN

While Git dominates distributed version control, centralized version control systems like SVN (Apache Subversion) remain valuable for specific use cases. Since GitHub phased out SVN support, understanding these distinctions is increasingly important for teams considering (or reconsidering) their version control strategy. 

When evaluating SVN vs Git, organizations must weigh Git’s collaborative power against SVN’s strengths in binary file management and centralized access control. GitHub’s distributed model excels at branching and parallel development but certain workflows can benefit from SVN’s centralized approach. 

For instance, SVN provides better handling of large binary files and enforces a simpler, linear history. This can benefit teams transitioning from traditional version control systems or managing substantial non-text assets. One thing to keep in mind is costs. While the software is open-source, teams need reliable hosting solutions. Platforms like Assembla offer managed SVN hosting, eliminating infrastructure overhead while preserving SVN’s benefits.

Comparing Major GitHub Alternatives

As you’ve seen, each platform we’ve discussed offers distinct capabilities that suit different development scenarios. Understanding these differences in all of these GitHub alternatives helps teams make informed decisions based on their specific needs.

GitLab distinguishes itself through comprehensive DevOps integration. Its unified platform includes native CI/CD pipelines, integrated security features, and flexible deployment options. While more expensive per user, GitLab’s self-hosting capabilities can reduce costs for larger teams willing to manage their infrastructure.

Bitbucket excels in the Atlassian ecosystem, providing seamless integration with Jira and Confluence. Its competitive pricing and unlimited private repositories make it particularly attractive for small teams already using Atlassian tools, though its community features lag behind GitHub’s.

Assembla takes a unique approach by supporting multiple version control systems while providing managed cloud environments. Our version control platform combines Git, SVN, and Perforce support, along with an integrated Agile project management tool and dedicated DevOps assistance. This makes Assembla ideal for teams seeking to reduce tool sprawl and infrastructure overhead.

GitHub Alternatives: Making the Right Choice

So which GitHub alternative should you choose? Should you stick with GitHub or use one of the alternatives we mentioned? 

Ultimately that decision must align with your primary requirements. A few examples might include:

  • DevSecOps integration and self-hosting? Consider GitLab
  • Deep Atlassian integration? Bitbucket fits naturally
  • Multiple VCS types or managed support? Assembla offers both
  • Lightweight self-hosting? Gitea provides simplicity
  • Large binary file management? SVN remains valuable

For teams seeking to reduce tool sprawl while maintaining high performance across Git, SVN, or Perforce repositories, Assembla is the strongest GitHub alternative. With features like managed hosting and integrated Agile project management, it provides a comprehensive solution that sets it apart from other GitHub competitors.