+1 for gitea. I've messed with codeberg, sourcehut, gitlab, even fossil (non git version control system, fantastic software but unfortunately everyone uses git) and I've got to say gitea is where it's at. It's the right combination of light and feature dense, could be lighter IMO but it's great.
They're not providers, although gitlab and sourcehut do offer code hosting services, and I'm sure some people are offering paid access to services they host with some of this software.
Codeberg could be said to be a provider. They are hosting FOSS projects exclusively and contribute to the Gitea project, as that is the forge software they use. They have services like Codeberg Pages and (soon) Codeberg CI.
I've been using Gitea for a while now, and have had no issues. I self-host it for personal projects, and also use it at work. I would absolutely recommend it.
The way I see it, the choice is pretty risk-free. I currently mirror repos on repo.or.cz (the original git host), codeberg.org, tildegit.org and sr.ht. (Feel free to suggest more!) I use pushurl extensively to transparently keep them all in sync: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14290113/git-pushing-cod...
Over time it'll become clear if some are unreliable or have other issues. When that happens you'll be glad for the diversification.
This whole evolution reminds me of the early web, which was often a thin veneer for multiple ftp mirror sites. This makes me happy :)
I don't have comparisons between the two but I'm a sourcehut early adopter paying at the $100/yr level and I'm more than satisfied for my personal projects.
Drew's head is in the right place and nowadays that matters to me for service providers more than anything.
