We performed a comparison between GNU Make and Jenkins based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Build Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as one wishes, and declarative approach fits the task really well. Wide adoption also means that everybody knows what GNU Make is and how to use it."
"Makefiles are extremely easy to work with using any preferred editor. GNU Make can be run directly from the terminal, not requiring any time wasted on clicking."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"GNU Make is such an essential tool that it is almost impossible to imagine working without it. Not having it, developers would probably have to resort to doing everything manually or via shell scripts."
"It can scale easily."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to connect with different tools and technologies."
"Different types of jobs, such as Pipeline, Build, Freestyle, Maven, etc."
"Jenkins is very user-friendly."
"It is a stable solution."
"Having builds and test tasks triggered on commit helps not to break the product."
"This is a great integration tool and very powerful."
"Jenkins has built good plugins and has a good security platform."
"GNU Make requires using the Tab symbol as the first symbol of command line for execution. In some text editors this can be problematic, as they automatically insert spaces instead of tabs."
"Vanilla GNU Make does not support any kind of colored output. A wrapper named colormake exists to work around this, but native (opt-in) support would be welcome."
"Jenkins is an old product, and we encounter performance issues and slow response. Also, some of the plugins are not stable."
"I think an integrated help button, that respected the context of the change/work in hand, would be a worthwhile improvement."
"The documentation is not helpful, as it is not user-friendly."
"The learning curve is quite steep at the moment."
"The bug fix speed is very slow."
"The UI of Jenkins could improve."
"I sometimes face a bottleneck when installing the plugins on an offline machine. Mapping the dependencies and then installing the correct sequence of dependencies is a nightmare, and it took me two days to do it."
"Tasks such as deployment, cloning, database switchover, and all other database missions and tasks are being done through Jenkins. If a job does not go through, at times the error message does not clearly indicate what caused the failure. I have to escalate it to the Jenkins DevOps team just to see what caused the failure. If the error message is clear, then I wouldn't have to escalate the issue to different teams."
Earn 20 points
GNU Make is ranked 25th in Build Automation while Jenkins is ranked 2nd in Build Automation with 83 reviews. GNU Make is rated 8.2, while Jenkins is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Jenkins writes "A highly-scalable and stable solution that reduces deployment time and produces a significant return on investment". GNU Make is most compared with Bazel, whereas Jenkins is most compared with GitLab, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, IBM Rational Build Forge and CircleCI. See our GNU Make vs. Jenkins report.
See our list of best Build Automation vendors.
We monitor all Build Automation reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
