What's the relation between FishEye and BitBucket?

[Borek Bernard]

From the description, FishEye seems to be quite similar in purpose to BitBucket. Would it be correct to say that FishEye is like BitBucket (sans wiki and issues, of course) but with more functionality and possibility to be installed on-premise?

How do those two things compare?

[Colin Goudie · Accepted solution]

First thing to understand is these products have very different origins. Fisheye was bought off Cenqua(?) and is a behind the firewall source control 'viewer'. Only recently have you been able to 'create' repositories in it

Bitbucket was always a source control system as well as a viewer. It originally was only mercurial but now has git support. Because it started its life as a standalone cloud app it has a viewer built in as well as repo management, wiki etc..

Personally, if you aren't using crucible reviews and happy to host your source offsite, bitbucket is a great replacement for fisheye. However, it doesn't have reviews and some companies won't host offsite so then fisheye is a no brainer.

I could see these products becoming more and more similar over time though :)

[Sten Pittet]

Hi,

Being FishEye's Product Manager I hope that I can shed some light on this question :) and I must admit that this is a question that I even get often at Atlassian: What's the difference between Bitbucket and FishEye.

THe confusion is a lot due to the fact that Bitbucket and FishEye share a lot of components: In both products you can browse your code, look at your commits and explore the history.

But the original nature of the two products differs. Bitbucket is a hosting service, helping you to manage your code and move forward as you build your product. FishEye's goal is more to be an indexing service pointed at all your different SCMs, whether it's SVN, Mercurial, Git or Perforce. Basically FishEye aims at providing you a single view on all your codebase (which could potentially include Bitbucket).

The fact that we recently added Git repository management may be one of the reason why you have your question but this is truly the way I would explain the difference between Bitbucket and FishEye.

Bitbucket helps your build your code and move forward. FishEye helps you look at all the things you've done so far, anywhere.

Cheers!

[Borek Bernard]

Thanks. So if we don't have any legacy code in different repositories and just need to host / manage a few Git repositories, we should be good to go with BitBucket, right? Another important question for us is, if we want to use Crucible, are will still good with just BitBucket or will we need FishEye in that case? BTW, there is a related question if you want to answer it.

[Sten Pittet]

If you're a small team with a couple repositories I would totally recommend Bitbucket. It's one of the simplest way to get started with Git hosting and I believe that the free private repositories will be handy.

Regarding the combination of FishEye and Crucible I'm a fervent supporter of the 2 co-existing together. FishEye gives you access to some information about your code that you would not get from Bitbucket and that can be relatively handy while performing code reviews.

The second reason for getting FishEye as well is that it will allow you to have a seemless code review to code browsing experience without having to switch context and / or applications.

[Billy Robert Roth]

In 2016 with Bitbucket enterprise could someone give an update on what this discussion looks like.  If I have fisheye crucible installed is there any reason to also have Bitbucket enterprise?  Is Bitbucket or fisheye better for git in particular?

[Jason Johnson]

Even better what about now? It looks almost like the two are the same.