iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Source code management tools for version control fall into three groups: version-control engines such as Git and Subversion, repository platforms such as GitHub and GitLab, and specialized systems such as Perforce Helix Core. Git is the strongest general-purpose foundation, but the best platform depends on collaboration, hosting, binary assets, compliance, integrations, and budget.
“Source-code management,” “source control,” and “version control” are often used interchangeably, but they describe different layers. Choosing the right layer prevents a common mistake: comparing Git, a version-control engine, directly with GitHub, a hosted collaboration platform, as though they were identical products.
Key takeaways
- Git is a distributed version-control foundation, while GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure Repos add hosting, reviews, permissions, and automation around repositories.
- GitHub is the strongest general hosted choice for public collaboration and ecosystem breadth; GitLab is compelling for integrated DevSecOps and self-managed deployments.
- Bitbucket fits organizations centered on Jira, while Azure Repos fits Microsoft and Azure DevOps environments that need Git or TFVC.
- Perforce Helix Core and Unity Version Control deserve serious consideration when large binary assets, file locking, or game and media workflows matter.
- Gitea and Forgejo offer lightweight self-hosted Git for teams willing to operate backups, upgrades, identity, runners, and security.
- Repository price is only part of total cost: CI/CD usage, storage, bandwidth, support, infrastructure, administration, and migration can materially change the bill.
What are source code management tools for version control?
Source code management tools for version control record changes to source files and help teams review, share, secure, and automate those changes. The term covers several related capabilities rather than one universal product category.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →- Version control records history, supports branching and merging, and allows a team to inspect or restore earlier states.
- Source-code management adds repository administration, access control, code review, issue tracking, and workflow policies to version control.
- Code hosting provides a remote service where repositories can be stored and shared.
- A DevOps platform may add CI/CD, security scanning, package registries, deployment, planning, testing, and observability.
The distinction matters. Git can run locally without GitHub, GitLab, or any other hosted service. GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure Repos, Gitea, and Forgejo are primarily repository platforms built around Git. Perforce Helix Core, Mercurial, Subversion, and Unity Version Control are version-control products or systems in their own right.
Popular on Amazon
Which source code management tool should you choose?
Start with the repository contents and operating model rather than with a popularity ranking. A practical first decision is whether the project is mostly text-based application code or contains large, frequently changing binary assets.
- Mostly text-based software code: choose Git as the underlying system, then compare GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure Repos as hosted or integrated platforms.
- Self-hosting is mandatory: compare GitLab Self-Managed, Gitea, and Forgejo, and include infrastructure and administration in the budget.
- Large binary assets are central: evaluate Perforce Helix Core or Unity Version Control, along with Git LFS if a Git workflow remains appropriate.
- The team already uses Mercurial or Subversion: calculate migration risk before replacing a working system.
- The organization has a dominant collaboration stack: Jira favors Bitbucket, while Microsoft identity, Azure Pipelines, and Azure Boards favor Azure Repos and Azure DevOps.
| Tool | Category and model | Hosting model | Best fit | Main drawback |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Git | Distributed version-control system | Local or any compatible host | General software development and portability | Needs a separate collaboration layer; difficult large-binary workflows |
| GitHub | Git repository platform | SaaS, with enterprise options | Public collaboration and broad integrations | Advanced features and usage-based services can increase cost |
| GitLab | Git-based DevSecOps platform | SaaS or self-managed | Integrated CI/CD, security, and planning | Broad feature set adds complexity and administration |
| Bitbucket | Git repository platform | Primarily hosted Atlassian service | Jira-centered organizations | Less compelling outside the Atlassian ecosystem |
| Azure Repos | Git or TFVC service | Azure DevOps Services and enterprise options | Microsoft and Azure organizations | The wider suite can be heavy for Git-only teams |
| Perforce Helix Core | Centralized enterprise VCS | Cloud, hosted, or self-managed | Large binaries, games, VFX, and hardware | Specialized workflow and potentially complex pricing |
| Gitea | Lightweight Git forge | Self-hosted or third-party hosted | Small private deployments | The customer operates the service |
| Forgejo | Community-oriented Git forge | Self-hosted or third-party hosted | Open-source, lightweight self-hosting | Smaller commercial ecosystem |
| Mercurial | Distributed VCS | Self-hosted or compatible hosting | Existing Mercurial teams | Smaller modern ecosystem than Git |
| Apache Subversion | Centralized VCS | Self-hosted or hosted | Legacy and server-authoritative workflows | Less flexible offline and modern branching workflows |
| Unity Version Control | Asset-oriented version-control platform | Cloud or managed deployment | Unity and game-development teams | Narrower use case than Git |
What should you evaluate before selecting a tool?
Use the same criteria for every candidate, but do not give every criterion equal weight. A web application team may prioritize pull requests and CI/CD; a game studio may prioritize binary storage and locking; a regulated enterprise may prioritize identity, auditability, and deployment control.
| Evaluation area | Questions to ask |
|---|---|
| Version-control model | Is the system distributed, centralized, or specialized? Can developers work and inspect history offline? |
| Repository content | Will repositories contain text, generated files, media, CAD, game assets, or other large binaries? |
| Hosting and sovereignty | Is SaaS acceptable, or are self-hosted, on-premises, hybrid, or regional deployment options required? |
| Collaboration | Are pull requests or merge requests, required reviews, protected branches, code owners, issues, and discussions included? |
| Automation | How do CI/CD pipelines, runners, caches, artifacts, package registries, and deployments work? |
| Security and identity | Are SSO, SCIM, directory integration, audit logs, signed commits, secret scanning, dependency alerts, and least-privilege permissions available at the required tier? |
| Scale | How will cloning, fetching, indexing, code search, CI fan-out, permissions, and backups behave for a monorepo? |
| Portability | Can repositories, issues, reviews, releases, packages, permissions, and pipeline definitions be exported or recreated? |
| Total cost | What will users, storage, bandwidth, CI minutes, runners, support, infrastructure, migration, and administration cost? |
Which tools are actual version-control systems?
Git: the general-purpose foundation
Git is a distributed, open-source version-control system. Developers can commit, inspect history, create branches, compare changes, and recover work locally, even when a hosted repository is unavailable. The official Git documentation covers the system and its surrounding tools.
Git’s portability and ecosystem make it the sensible starting point for nearly every conventional software project. Git does not, by itself, provide hosted pull requests, centralized identity management, built-in CI/CD, a web code browser, or organization-level governance. Those capabilities come from a Git hosting or DevOps platform.
Git is strongest with text-based source code. Frequently changing large binary files can make repositories expensive to clone, fetch, back up, and store. Git LFS, artifact registries, object storage, file locking, or an asset-oriented VCS may be more appropriate.
Essential Git commands
git init
git clone <repository-url>
git status
git add .
git commit -m "Describe the change"
git switch -c feature/example
git fetch origin
git pull --rebase origin main
git push -u origin feature/example
git log --oneline --graph --decorate
git diff
git restore <file>Command behavior depends on the installed Git version, repository configuration, hooks, authentication method, and branch policy. The Git reference manual is the authoritative place to check command syntax and options.
Mercurial: a distributed alternative
Mercurial is also a distributed version-control system. Mercurial supports local commits and history and can be a reasonable choice for a team with an established Mercurial codebase or a strong preference for its workflow. The Mercurial project site provides the official software and documentation.
Mercurial’s main disadvantage for a new commercial project is ecosystem size. Modern hosting, integrations, hiring, and third-party workflow support are much more likely to assume Git. Calling Mercurial “simpler” or “better” without defining the criterion is misleading; in 2026, its strongest case is compatibility with existing repositories and expertise.
Apache Subversion: centralized version control
Apache Subversion is a centralized version-control system in which the server normally remains the authoritative repository. Centralization can suit legacy systems, established permissions, document-oriented workflows, and teams that specifically need server-authoritative behavior. The Apache Subversion project maintains the official system and documentation.
Subversion is not obsolete simply because Git is more common for new cloud-native development. Subversion can be the lower-risk choice when existing integrations, operational knowledge, or repository compatibility matter. Its trade-offs include less flexible offline work and a less fluid branching and merging experience than modern Git workflows.
Perforce Helix Core: centralized control for large assets
Perforce Helix Core is a centralized enterprise version-control system designed for large repositories and large binary assets. Perforce positions Helix Core for game development and other environments where scale, file locking, and intellectual-property management can be more important than Git’s lightweight branching model; the Helix Core product page describes its capabilities.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Helix Core is a strong candidate for game, film, VFX, hardware, CAD, and other asset-heavy teams. File locking can prevent two people from editing a non-mergeable binary at the same time. The workflow is more specialized than Git, and pricing, infrastructure, support, and implementation may require a sales-led assessment. Perforce’s Helix Core pricing information should be consulted for the current deployment and licensing model.
Helix Core is excessive for many ordinary web and API projects. A team should not select it merely because a repository contains a few images or build artifacts; the decision becomes more compelling when large binaries change frequently and multiple disciplines need controlled access.
Unity Version Control: asset-aware game development
Unity Version Control, formerly known as Plastic SCM, is designed for software and game-development workflows that include substantial binary assets. Unity presents Unity Version Control as a product for teams that need asset-oriented collaboration and distributed development.
Also popular on Amazon
- Used Book in Good Condition
Unity Version Control deserves separate treatment from ordinary Git hosting because its main differentiator is asset management rather than GitHub-style public collaboration. Unity studios and game teams should examine file locking, hosting, licensing, Unity integration, migration, and non-Unity tooling before standardizing on it. Ordinary backend and web teams will usually gain more from Git.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Which hosted Git platform is best for collaboration?
GitHub: best for ecosystem and public collaboration
GitHub is a hosted Git platform built around repositories, pull requests, issues, discussions, releases, branch protections, code owners, integrations, and automation through GitHub Actions. GitHub is a strong fit for open-source projects, startups, and general software teams that value contributor familiarity and a broad marketplace.
GitHub’s advantages include public-project visibility, a large developer community, extensive integrations, and GitHub-native automation and security features. GitHub Enterprise Cloud and Enterprise Server provide enterprise deployment choices, but organizations should verify which governance and security controls are available in each plan.
GitHub’s U.S. pricing page showed a Free plan, Team at $4 per user per month, Enterprise at $21 per user per month, and Git LFS at $5 per month for 50 GB of storage and 50 GB of bandwidth when the dossier was checked for this article in August 2026. Pricing, quotas, promotional terms, and usage charges can change, so those figures require confirmation before purchase.
GitHub may be a poor fit for teams requiring maximum data sovereignty or asset-heavy workflows where ordinary Git and Git LFS become operationally awkward. Actions, Codespaces, Git LFS, storage, and bandwidth can also affect the total bill beyond the per-user plan.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →GitLab: best for an integrated DevSecOps platform
GitLab combines Git repositories, merge requests, issues, CI/CD, package registries, security tools, planning, and other application-lifecycle capabilities in one platform. GitLab.com provides a hosted service, while GitLab Self-Managed provides a deployment path for organizations that need more infrastructure control. The GitLab product overview and GitLab documentation describe the available platform capabilities.
GitLab is a good choice when reducing the number of separate DevOps systems matters. GitLab is especially attractive to engineering organizations that want CI/CD and security close to the repository or need self-managed deployment.
The trade-off is breadth. A broad platform can be more complex to configure, secure, upgrade, back up, and govern than a focused Git host. GitLab.com plans, GitLab Self-Managed editions, and enterprise offerings are not feature-identical; the GitLab pricing page should be checked for the exact tier and deployment model.
GitLab is not the automatic best choice for a small team that needs only private repositories and basic reviews. A smaller hosted service or lightweight forge may reduce both subscription cost and administrative complexity.
Bitbucket: best for Jira-centered organizations
Bitbucket is a hosted Git platform with pull requests, branch controls, CI/CD through Bitbucket Pipelines, and integrations with Jira and other Atlassian products. Bitbucket is most compelling when Jira is already the system of record for planning, issues, workflows, and reporting.
The main advantage is a connected Jira-to-code workflow. The main limitation is strategic: teams that do not use Jira or Atlassian administration may receive less value than they would from GitHub or GitLab. Atlassian licensing can also become difficult to forecast when multiple products, users, automation services, storage, and build usage are combined.
Review the current hosted plans on the Bitbucket pricing page and verify included build minutes, storage, workspace limits, and user definitions before comparing prices.
Azure Repos and Azure DevOps: best for Microsoft-aligned teams
Azure Repos provides Git repositories and Team Foundation Version Control, or TFVC, within Azure DevOps. Microsoft documents both options in its Azure DevOps source-control guide and contrasts Git’s distributed model with TFVC’s centralized model in its Git and TFVC comparison.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesAzure Repos is a strong fit when Azure Pipelines, Azure Boards, Azure Artifacts, Azure Test Plans, Visual Studio, Microsoft identity, and enterprise administration already organize software delivery. Azure Repos can also help organizations with established TFVC repositories plan a supported move toward Git.
Also popular on Amazon
Git is generally the default recommendation for new projects unless a specific TFVC requirement exists. TFVC may remain appropriate for compatibility, centralized controls, or an established workflow, but new teams should not choose it merely because it is available.
The broader Azure DevOps suite can feel heavy for a small team seeking only Git hosting. Check the Azure DevOps pricing page for current user, parallel-job, artifact, storage, and related charges.
Which self-hosted Git forge is best?
Gitea: best lightweight self-hosted option
Gitea is a lightweight, open-source Git forge that provides repository hosting, code review, issues, package functionality, and Gitea Actions. Gitea is suitable for small organizations, private infrastructure, homelabs, and teams that want a focused service without operating a larger DevSecOps suite.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallGitea’s official feature comparison highlights low resource usage, multiple database and operating-system options, repository search, Git LFS, code review, signed commits, and migration capabilities. The Gitea comparison documentation warns that comparisons can become outdated, so a specific release’s feature set should be checked before deployment.
Gitea lists its self-hosted open-source edition as free under the MIT license on its pricing page. “Free” describes the software license, not the complete service. The organization still pays in compute, storage, backups, updates, monitoring, authentication, runners, email delivery, security, and disaster recovery.
Forgejo: best community-oriented self-hosted forge
Forgejo is an open-source, self-hosted Git forge with familiar repository, issue, pull-request, and automation concepts. The Forgejo project site and Forgejo documentation provide the current project and release information.
Forgejo suits teams prioritizing self-hosting, open governance, community orientation, and a lightweight GitHub-like experience. Forgejo is not automatically a drop-in replacement for every GitHub service. Teams should verify the specific release, migration tooling, integrations, authentication, actions compatibility, and support arrangements.
The core project is open source, but commercial cost depends on hosting, support, infrastructure, backups, and operational labor. Forgejo is a poor fit for an organization that requires a turnkey enterprise compliance package or a large vendor’s extensive marketplace and support network.
What are the main differences between these tools?
| Need | Strong starting shortlist | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Portable foundation for ordinary source code | Git | Distributed local history, broad compatibility, and freedom to select a host |
| Open-source visibility and external contributors | GitHub | Strong public collaboration and contributor familiarity |
| One integrated delivery platform | GitLab | Repository, CI/CD, security, packages, and planning are closely integrated |
| Jira-centered planning | Bitbucket | Atlassian integration connects work tracking and code workflows |
| Microsoft and Azure delivery stack | Azure Repos | Works with Azure Boards, Pipelines, Artifacts, Visual Studio, and Microsoft identity |
| Large binary assets and file locking | Helix Core or Unity Version Control | Specialized asset workflows can be more suitable than ordinary Git |
| Lightweight self-hosting | Gitea or Forgejo | Lower-resource Git forge options with infrastructure control |
| Existing Mercurial repository | Mercurial | Avoids migration cost when the current workflow still works |
| Existing centralized legacy repository | Subversion | Preserves compatibility and server-authoritative behavior |
How should you handle large binary files?
Large binary files require an explicit storage and collaboration design. Do not put every asset, generated output, installer, dataset, or media file into an ordinary Git repository and assume the workflow will scale.
- Git LFS: stores large files through a separate mechanism while keeping pointers in Git. GitHub lists Git LFS as a separately metered service; the GitHub pricing page showed 50 GB of storage and 50 GB of bandwidth for $5 per month when checked in August 2026.
- File locking: prevents simultaneous edits to binary files that cannot be meaningfully merged. Locking is a central reason to consider Helix Core or Unity Version Control.
- Artifact or package storage: keeps build outputs and dependencies out of the source repository when those files can be reproduced or distributed separately.
- Asset-specific VCS: is worth evaluating when artists, designers, engineers, and technical staff collaborate on large non-mergeable files.
Ask how often binaries change, how many historical versions must be retained, how quickly a new developer must clone the project, whether files need locking, and whether the assets need the same permissions and review process as source code.
Which tool is best for monorepos?
No product is automatically fast for every monorepo. A monorepo evaluation should test clone and fetch times, partial clone or sparse checkout, server-side indexing, code search, permission boundaries, CI fan-out, affected-project detection, backup time, and migration behavior with a representative repository.
Recommended Free Tools
“Supports monorepos” is therefore not a sufficient buying criterion. A platform may support a large repository while its hosted runners, indexing, storage, permissions, or developer workstations become bottlenecks at the scale of a particular organization.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What does self-hosting really cost?
Self-hosting replaces part of a subscription with operational responsibility. A self-hosted GitLab, Gitea, or Forgejo deployment requires more than installing the application.
- Compute, database, storage, and network capacity
- Encrypted backups and off-site replication
- High availability where downtime is unacceptable
- TLS certificates, identity integration, and access reviews
- Security patching and upgrade testing
- CI runner infrastructure and artifact storage
- Email delivery, monitoring, alerting, and incident response
- Disaster-recovery procedures and periodic recovery tests
Gitea can be attractive because its lightweight design reduces infrastructure requirements, but the customer still owns availability, backups, upgrades, security, and recovery. The Gitea installation comparison and Gitea licensing information help distinguish software cost from service cost.
Also popular on Amazon
How do CI/CD and security change the total cost?
A low repository subscription price does not necessarily produce a low source-management bill. CI/CD can add charges for build minutes, hosted runner size, parallel jobs, artifact storage, cache storage, network egress, and self-hosted runner administration.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsSecurity features also need plan-level verification. Compare protected branches, required reviews, code owners, signed commits and tags, secret scanning, dependency alerts, static analysis, software-composition analysis, audit logs, SSO, SCIM, and retention policies. The existence of a feature somewhere in a product does not mean the feature is included in the free plan or the deployment edition being evaluated.
Before selecting a platform, estimate monthly active users, repository storage, Git LFS or artifact usage, CI minutes, runner concurrency, package storage, expected traffic, backup retention, and the labor required to administer the service.
How portable are repositories and workflows?
A Git repository can be portable while the surrounding development workflow is not. Migration risk often lives in issues, comments, pull-request or merge-request history, CI/CD pipelines, secrets, environments, package registries, releases, permissions, webhooks, project boards, audit data, and platform-specific security findings.
Teams should export repositories and test a representative project before signing a large contract. A repository mirror is useful, but a mirror does not automatically preserve every platform feature or historical discussion.
What is the safest migration checklist?
- Inventory repositories, branches, tags, submodules, hooks, LFS objects, external dependencies, and repository sizes.
- Identify issues, reviews, releases, packages, wikis, artifacts, boards, and other data outside the Git object database.
- Map users, groups, service accounts, permissions, branch policies, code owners, and identity-provider integrations.
- Export data and test a representative small repository, a large repository, and a repository with CI/CD and packages.
- Recreate pipelines, environments, secrets, deployment approvals, webhooks, runners, and security policies safely; never copy secrets into test logs or public repositories.
- Run a parallel mirror period and compare commits, tags, branches, builds, permissions, and notification behavior.
- Freeze writes during final cutover, perform the migration, and validate history, branch policies, access, builds, artifacts, and integrations.
- Keep a read-only copy of the old system for the retention period required by the organization.
What happened to AWS CodeCommit in older comparison lists?
AWS CodeCommit appears in older source-code-management lists, but current buyer guidance should not automatically recommend it for new customers. The dossier includes a secondary report stating that AWS CodeCommit closed to new customers in 2024, but that claim should be independently confirmed against a current first-party AWS announcement or documentation before publication. The AWS CodeCommit pricing page is a relevant starting point, not sufficient confirmation by itself.
Existing AWS customers should distinguish the question “Can an existing repository continue to operate?” from the question “Can a new customer open a CodeCommit account?” Do not treat those as the same availability claim.
Which tool is best for each use case?
| Use case | Recommended starting point | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| General software team | GitHub or GitLab | Both provide mature Git collaboration; choose based on ecosystem versus integrated DevSecOps priorities |
| Open-source project | GitHub | Public collaboration and contributor familiarity are especially valuable |
| Self-managed DevOps platform | GitLab | Combines repositories with CI/CD and security while offering self-managed deployment |
| Lightweight private self-hosting | Gitea or Forgejo | Focused, open-source forges with lower operational footprint than larger suites |
| Jira-based organization | Bitbucket | Atlassian integration can connect planning, issues, and code review |
| Microsoft and Azure organization | Azure Repos | Fits Azure DevOps, Microsoft identity, Azure Pipelines, and Azure Boards |
| Game, film, VFX, or hardware team with large binaries | Perforce Helix Core or Unity Version Control | Asset workflows and locking may matter more than Git ecosystem breadth |
| Existing Mercurial project | Mercurial | Continuity may be safer than migration without a clear business benefit |
| Existing centralized legacy project | Subversion | Compatibility and server-authoritative behavior may outweigh modern ecosystem benefits |
Final recommendation
For a new, conventional software project, use Git as the version-control foundation and select a host based on the surrounding workflow. Choose GitHub for ecosystem breadth and public collaboration, GitLab for integrated DevSecOps or self-management, Bitbucket for Jira-centered work, and Azure Repos for Microsoft and Azure DevOps environments.
Choose Perforce Helix Core or Unity Version Control when large binary assets and locking define the workflow. Choose Gitea or Forgejo when self-hosting and operational control matter more than a large commercial ecosystem. Keep Mercurial or Subversion when compatibility with an established project is the decisive factor.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Git the same as GitHub?
Git is a distributed version-control system; GitHub is a hosted Git platform that adds repository hosting, pull requests, permissions, issues, automation, and other collaboration features. A team can use Git without using GitHub.
Which source code management tool is best for beginners?
GitHub is often the easiest hosted starting point for a conventional software project because pull requests, repositories, integrations, and public documentation are familiar to many developers. GitLab, Bitbucket, or Azure Repos may be easier for a beginner whose team already uses those platforms.
Which version-control tool is best for large binary files?
Perforce Helix Core or Unity Version Control can be better suited to large, frequently changing binary assets because asset workflows and file locking are central to their designs. Git with Git LFS can still work, but the team must test repository size, clone time, storage, bandwidth, and locking requirements.
Should a small team self-host Gitea or Forgejo?
A small team should self-host Gitea or Forgejo only when infrastructure control justifies operating backups, upgrades, security, identity, monitoring, runners, and disaster recovery. The open-source software may be free, but the complete service still has infrastructure and labor costs.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: Git is the default foundation for most new software projects, but GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure Repos are different hosted collaboration choices, while Helix Core and Unity Version Control target asset-heavy workflows. Decide from repository contents, hosting rules, existing integrations, governance, portability, and total cost—not from a universal “best” ranking.
