> We claim it based on the assumption that almost all very large companies (enterprise) host their own source code and they are switching to git.

Almost all × Almost all (even assuming that's not overstated for either of those claims, which given the evidence of your inappropriately narrow definition of “enterprise” and my experience in the parts of that space you don't seem to have considered, I doubt) isn't the same as all, or even almost all.

> We and our competition can easily make that claim since almost all Fortune 500 companies have at least one use of GitHub, GitLab, and Atlassian.

“Enterprise”, as a software market, is more than Fortune 500. Not only is that an overly narrow definition for private, for-profit enterprises, “enterprise” also included large public and non-profit (e.g.—but not exclusively—academic) institutions.

I dunno. I do R&D tax credit studies for hundreds of enterprise software firms and I always ask what version control system(s) they use and where/how it is hosted. I would guesstimate between a third and a half use GitLab in some capacity. And even then a lot of the time it's only for some teams or some projects. I do work with a disproportionate number of MS shops and a disproportionate number of medium to large companies (and few very large companies), but that's kind of the point. Those companies account for a lot of the enterprise market, yet you aren't including them in your claim. You've still got amazing market share and an impressive product, so there's no need to exaggerate. Just say 2/3rds of self-hosted git. That's a powerful enough marketing statement in and of itself.

> a disproportionate number of MS shops

What breakdown of version control systems you seeing? If between a third and a half use GitLab I would love to know what the rest are using.

Just to clarify, between a third and a half use GitLab in some capacity. But to answer your question, I see a lot of TFS these days. Easily 90% of the MS stack firms, and even some with more diverse stacks. And increasingly with the VS git for Windows plugin as the VCS. Those are probably around 50% of my clients.

SVN and Mercurial have a noticeable presence, say around 30% of my clients, but that number seems to be declining. I mostly see this with smaller firms with a single large, mature, legacy product that's in the cash cow stage. They're barely investing in new features, so why bother to upgrade their internal systems?

A really shocking number of firms don't have any VCS whatsoever (around 15%) or individual teams decide on their own solutions (around 10%) or individual teams may supplement the firm wide VCS for production with their own dev solutions (around 15%, which overlaps with all the other categories). A lot of those teams seem to use GitHub private repos or GitLab, though frequently I see institutional constraints prevent them from adopting a self-hosted solution (a company too dumb to set up VCS isn't likely to spring for a server--these are the same people that have dev and prod but no test servers). I frankly don't know how the firms without a VCS function. They tend to be my most challenging clients, so the answer is probably not well.

And then a really large number of firms have legacy homegrown solutions. Probably like 20%. These tend to be larger companies with an in-house tech department supporting a really unremarkable product that's been in use for 20+ years, like an eCommerce solution for a mid-sized retailer or an inventory system for a manufacturer. I think it's probably a much larger segment than shows up in a lot of stats because they tend to be... weird. They feel less like development teams and more like overgrown IT departments.

Notice that these numbers don't add up to 100. That's because there's lots of overlap, especially at larger firms that have grown by acquisition, where individual entities can operate nearly independently. Really, there's a huge selection bias here too. My clients tend to be either very well organized MS shops or nightmarishly anarchic hodgepodges. That's driven by client size and by my firm's market position and by my own sales abilities. I do better with MS shops because that's the stack I use and it makes it easier for me to speak their language, as it were. My firm targets mid-sized companies over very large companies or very small ones.

So take what I say with a grain of salt.

Thanks for the detailed insights!

From bitrise link

> We randomly selected 10,000 apps as a base

"2/3 of all enterprises" can only be true if all enterprises are building apps on bitrise.

I do agree that the majority of Bitrise their population is not the enterprise at all. The only other representative data we could find was from BuddyBuild https://www.buddybuild.com/blog/source-code-hosting#selfhost... and has the same problem. You can see that it also isn't enterprise because the vast majority of their respondents is cloud hosted.

If there is a better data source we can use I would love to know. It seems hard to get data on self hosted organizations. Traditionally you looked at the number of paying customers, but that doesn't work with open source.

>I do agree that the majority of Bitrise their population is not the enterprise at all.

> We and our competition can easily make that claim since almost all Fortune 500 companies have at least one use of GitHub, GitLab, and Atlassian.

Not sure if you are trolling or are missing the point people are trying to make. You are admitting that you made that conclusion based on wrong data and yet continue to say you claim is correct.

Inability to find the valid metrics you want is not justification to use invalid numbers.

These numbers are the most valid numbers we can find and match what we estimate based on other even less exact data (like the version check build into GitLab).

If you want to publish a research paper, "Yeah, I know this isn't really a valid measurement, but it's the best I can do" isn't going to cut it. This isn't a research paper, but honesty is honesty. If those are the best numbers you have, I would simply not say "X% of enteprises are using" -- because you don't actually know that. I'd say what you know instead, however you can describe it. Yep, it doesn't read as well marketting-wise, true.

> You can see that it also isn't enterprise because the vast majority of their respondents is cloud hosted.

So? I work for a extremely conservative enterprise customer (with strict compliance concerns), and we're still agressively moving to cloud-hosted solutions for most things.

Also, still exclusively using TFVC in TFS for source control.

In the last 3 enterprises that I've worked in, 2 did (do) use GitLab. So, I guess what I'm saying is, it matches my experience.

I would assume, at the very least, that some significant portion of those enterprises who are switching to Git are Microsoft shops who are just switching to a version of TFS that includes Git.

I'd also guess that "Bitrise users" is a sample group that differs in significant ways from "Enterprise users".