Comparison of Subversion servers (VisualSVN, CollabNet, uberSVN, etc.)?

Question

I am helping my business unit set up a Subversion server, and I'm evaluating some options like VisualSVN Server, CollabNet Subversion Edge, and uberSVN.

I've tried the basic version of VisualSVN Server, and it seemed fairly decent. I also tried uberSVN, and quickly saw how frustrating it is that you can't batch-add existing repositories.

Has anyone written up a good point-by-point comparison between the various Subversion server products out there? I have yet to find anything nearly as epic and comprehensive as what the CI Feature Matrix has done for comparing continuous integration servers.

Can anyone summarize the differentiating features between the various Subversion servers? Or are they largely a matter of personal taste?

Answer 1

Disclaimer: I manage the SVN Edge project and am also a committer for the Apache Subversion project.

I think it is mainly a matter of taste.

All three are free, but only SVN Edge is open-source.

VisualSVN Server only runs on Windows servers, which is not an issue if that is what you want to use. Anyway, because it only runs on Windows it is arguably more tightly integrated.

SVN Edge and UberSVN provide a web browse interface, and VisualSVN Server provide a Microsoft Management Console add-in.

SVN Edge has a feature called "Discover Repositories" that automatically adds all the existing repositories you have. You just point it at the folder that contains your repositories. SVN Edge also has a REST API, so you can write scripts for doing things like adding repositories.

Keep in mind that all three of these mainly exist to help you configure and manage the server. The actual server that your users interact with is Apache + Subversion. So it does not really matter which way you go, it is all Subversion.

Answer 2

First I should make it clear that I work for WANdisco, the company behind uberSVN.

I'm not aware of a comparison document for the products mentioned (though if anyone wants to write one I'd be happy to help).

When it comes to uberSVN and Collabnet Edge you'll find a lot of similarities in terms of functionality. With the exception of a few features it's likely to be a matter of personal taste as Mark said.

We've done a lot of work on the UI to try and make it as simple and slick as possible, so hopefully there's not much missing there (if there is I'm happy to take feedback on that). Note to @David W, Edge has a web front end now too.

Feature-wise uberSVN has more in-depth LDAP and authorisation features. You also get svn:// support, the ability to switch between Subversion 1.6.x and 1.7.x, and the ability to set DAV location. There are a few paid apps also that add a whole range of ALM features to uberSVN as required, without having to install an entire new product (with Edge I think there comes a point when you have to go down the Teamforge route for certain things).

There are a couple of features that Edge has that uberSVN doesn't yet, like the ability to add multiple repo's at once and automated scheduled backups.

Edge is also the only open-source product of the three, though we are planning to release an SDK at some point in the near(ish) future which will go some way to increasing the customisability of uberSVN.

VisualSVN suffers for me in that you don't have remote admin in the free version, and the fact that it's Windows only. Again though, if those aren't an issue for you it comes right back down to personal taste.

Answer 3

Here's the basic take:

• All three are basically Subversion compiled to work with Apache httpd and all required resources. I believe they all have LDAP configuration abilities too, but you have to pay extra for that.
• uberSVN and VisualSVN provide front ends for Subversion maintenance and Apache configuration. You can setup teams, and browse your repository.
• Both UberSVN and VisualSVN have all sorts of bonus bells. UberSVN for example has some sort of "Social" front end which allows you to sort of tweet comments on files outside of commit comments. Wandisco admited to me that this isn't really a heavily used feature..
• All three will offer support at various levels. You pay them your money, and they're your support monkey. The more you pay them, the more tricks they'll do.

CollabNet has no GUI front end. You hack the configuration files themselves. It does have ViewVC as a repository web browser, but I prefer Sventon anyway. I find Sventon faster than ViewVC, and it integrates better with more third party tools. Plus, I don't have to run it on my Subversion server. Truthfully, most developers aren't going to use the web interface anyway. It's mainly used to show the source code in things like Jira or Jenkins.

My personal preference is CollabNet. I don't like the front ends that VisualSVN and UberSVN provide. I am a highly technical person, and I find that these front ends keep modifying the changes I make. However, if you don't have the technical expertise, and don't feel like picking it up. Why are you a Configuration Manager? Go into finance or something. I mean, that the front ends that VisualSVN and UberSVN provide may be for you. I don't really see much difference between them. The main issue would be support either Wandisco or VisualSVN Limited providi you after you do the install.

I don't find setting up Apache httpd or Subversion repositories all that daunting. svnadmin create creates your repository. Apache httpd configuration is well documented in the Subversion online manual. The support I get from Stackoverflow and the various email lists is better than most paid support. Once you get everything setup, you rarely touch it anyway.

However, if you need a GUI, I would say it really doesn't make all that much difference. I don't know if VisualSVNServer works on Linux, so that might be an issue. However, once you set everything up, there's not much use in the front ends. I would say who you want to use as support is probably a more important issue than the administration front end.