All the extra features is the main selling point of GitLab. It's the reason you use it over GitHub because GitLab is more than just repo hosting and issue tracking.

That, and the fact that you can self-host

You can self-host GitHub, too: https://enterprise.github.com/home

You can, at entreprise prices indeed. Which is out of reach for most SMEs out there. This is IMHO a llarg part of what made Gitlab successful.

The price is roughly $21 per user per month, which isn't really all that enterprisey, given you have at least 10 users, that is.

I don't know exactly how GitHub Enterprise and the GitLab Community Edition compare in that regard but aspects such as usability, maintainability and updatability are much more important than saving $21 per user per month.

So, yes if your company has a lot fewer than 10 Git users GitLab probably is the best option. In every other case, it depends and the pricing advantage becomes less pronounced.

Sure, Github definitely has worth. I use both myself.

But for a petty price, Gitlab comes with a Kanban board, a release management system, a (free) CI tool, and all of the newer features I don't have experience with ( the whole Kubernetes integration lately? ). (So no need for paid travis, Asana, Jira, ....).

Adding to that that most cloud providers offer ready to use images with Gitlab installed, I understand what it becomes such a 'default choice' for new installs lately.

Compare apples to apples, at least. The paid GutLab plans are as expensive or more than GitHub. And they keep raising their prices too cuz they aren’t making enough money to survive. The big difference for us (Apple) is performance and reliability. GitLab isn’t reliable and GitHub Enterprise is rock solid with whatever we throw at it. That’s better than a bunch of features (to my team, at least).

GitLab the company was cash flow profitable in the first quarter, with 90% margins and doubling incremental revenue (IACV) YoY. We're very much default alive.

Our biggest customer installation had a serious problem in 2015 and we addressed it. We have customers switching from GHE because of the reliability of GitLab self hosted. There are problems on GitLab.com, we made solving that harder because we insist on running the same code our customers are running, so we'll never have a repeat of 2015.

We would love to get in touch to discuss any performance problems you're still having.

> The big difference for us (---) is performance and reliability.

If that's the name of your employer, bear in mind that you can get into massive hot water for using it to endorse third-party products without authorization.

Ive read about them using both systems. Seems like teams have flexibility to choose what they want. As they should. And some prefer GitLab.

Cool to hear that Apple uses Github. I don't think we disagree. Gitlab has had reliability issues the last months/years. Probably in part due to their rapid growth. And I still prefer the stability of the Github infrastructure compared to gitlab.com.

I was trying to say that, in my experience, Gitlab has become the defacto VCS tool for new/small companies that want something self-hosted.

What's interesting is, I do see the trend slightly change the last year, as Gitlab becomes heavier and people switching to gogs.

In the end there is probably enough space for all depending on your needs.

GitHub enterprise is a walled garden: you can’t use it to host open source software.

Github has Enterprise edition for self-hosting: https://enterprise.github.com/home

At $2,500 per 10 users / year [1], vs the GitLab Community Edition download at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/ (it looks like a MIT license)

Maybe it's worth the price. Did anybody used both of them and is willing to tell us how they compare?

[1] https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing

Ultimately, I think, Git is a PM tool. Its benefits are __not__ exclusive to programming / code. The future for Git is much broader. GitLab is likely positioning, leading, and leaning into that future.

Git has never been anything other than a project management tool - who do you think had to organize code changes in the 1980s?

Then? Those (other) tools? That workflow? It was for version control.

Today? The needs are different, and Git needs a better wrapper to do that. Thus, GL's emphasis on less code-centric (more PM-y) features.

In all the scenarios I've been involved in implementing a new version control solution, there are already existing project management and issue tracking solutions in place, and appearing to want to replace them is a hurdle to be overcome rather than selling point. We use Gitlab, and the CI and Issue tracking features all sit idle, but better integration with Jira would be valuable, cause ain't no way we're switching issue trackers.

Replying to myself. Oh, I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just pointing out how the incentives line up with the outcomes :-)