1. 1. Hosting and Repository Management: AWS CodeCommit is a fully-managed source control service that makes it easy for teams to host Git repositories, collaborate on code, and manage their software development projects. It provides a secure and scalable platform for storing and versioning your code, with features like access control, repository management, and support for branching and merging. On the other hand, Fork is a Git client for macOS and Windows that allows you to manage your Git repositories and collaborate with your team. While CodeCommit offers hosting and repository management as a service, Fork is a desktop application that provides a user-friendly interface for working with Git repositories.

2. 2. Integration with AWS services: One of the key advantages of using AWS CodeCommit is its seamless integration with other AWS services. CodeCommit can be easily integrated with services like AWS CodeBuild, AWS CodeDeploy, and AWS CodePipeline, allowing you to automate your software development processes and build a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline. This integration enables you to use CodeCommit as a central repository for managing your code and deploying it to different environments. In contrast, Fork does not provide direct integration with AWS services, as it is primarily a desktop application for managing Git repositories.

3. 3. Scalability and Availability: AWS CodeCommit is designed to be highly scalable and available, with built-in redundancy and automatic scaling capabilities. It allows you to store an unlimited number of repositories, and it can handle large codebases and high traffic volumes. CodeCommit also provides automatic backups and disaster recovery features, ensuring that your code is always safe and accessible. Fork, on the other hand, does not offer the same level of scalability and availability, as it relies on the resources of the local machine where it is installed.

4. 4. Managed Service vs. Desktop Application: AWS CodeCommit is a managed service provided by AWS, which means that AWS takes care of the infrastructure and maintenance tasks. This allows you to focus on your development work without worrying about managing servers or software updates. Fork, on the other hand, is a desktop application that needs to be installed locally on each user's machine. This gives you more control over your development environment but also requires you to manage the installation and updates of the Fork application.

5. 5. Pricing and Cost Structure: AWS CodeCommit follows AWS's pricing model, where you pay for the storage and data transfer used by your repositories. The pricing is based on the number of active users and the amount of data stored. Fork, on the other hand, is a one-time purchase application with a fixed cost. Once you purchase Fork, you can use it without any additional charges or subscriptions. The cost of Fork is not dependent on the number of users or the size of your codebase.

6. 6. Collaboration and Teamwork: AWS CodeCommit provides built-in collaboration and teamwork features, such as access control, code reviews, and pull requests. It allows multiple developers to work on the same codebase concurrently and provides a platform for reviewing and approving code changes. Fork, on the other hand, primarily focuses on the individual developer's workflow. While it supports basic collaboration features like branching and merging, it does not have the same level of built-in collaboration tools as CodeCommit.

In Summary, AWS CodeCommit is a fully-managed source control service that offers hosting and repository management, integration with AWS services, scalability and availability, collaboration and teamwork features, and a flexible pricing model. Fork, on the other hand, is a Git client desktop application that provides a user-friendly interface for managing Git repositories but lacks the fully-managed service capabilities and integration with AWS services provided by CodeCommit.