3 ms·
GitLab is great and it's lovely to see a diverse selection of tools, but I'm not too convinced of the cost benefits – for a team with 100 developers, the annual
by matthewmacleod 10y ago
GitLab is great and it's lovely to see a diverse selection of tools, but I'm not too convinced of the cost benefits – for a team with 100 developers, the annual cost of ~$11,000 is a pretty small amount compared to the maybe $25m salaries you'll be paying!
- danielrmay 10y agoAvg salary of $250k per dev? Are you hiring?
- dr_zoidberg 10y agoWell where I live, the final salary you get in your pocket is about 60% of what the employer has to pay (the rest are taxes and "social charges" which include medical insurance and retirement funds). If it's the same where OP lives, then he was probably thinking about 125k salarys + taxes, charges, etc. Also, he must be considering other expenses that come with having employees (though he did say "25m in salaries"). Still, if you bring the salaries to 100k a year, it still compares favorably to GitLab: $11k vs 10M.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y agoYou of course realize that "salary seen by the employee" is not at all the same as "costs payed by the employer". (For example, social security and health insurance).
- matthewmacleod 10y agoI would guess fully-loaded cost is 2x salary, so perhaps I should have said "amount you'll be paying for staff" :)
- akerro 10y agoCould you take a look at price for GitHub for same big team please?
- matthewmacleod 10y agoSorry, that was my point – Github is ~ $11k for a team of 100 developers. The difference between '$11k' and 'free' is basically irrelevant when you are paying > $25m for your engineering team in the first place!
- prodigal_erik 10y agoSomebody has to establish it's one of the most reasonable choices, and convince the checkbook holder it'll save the team two week's work.