We performed a comparison between Bamboo and GNU Make based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Jenkins, Google and others in Build Automation."The most valuable features of Bamboo are its performance and UI. Additionally, there are a lot of useful plugins, integration with other solutions, such as Bitbucket and Jira, and a helpful online community."
"It's one of the best solutions in this line of work. We have many Atlassian products. We use Bamboo, JIRA, Service Desk, and some other Atlassian plugins. We like that it's easy to integrate into each other. It's a suite of services."
"Bamboo's integration with the rest of Atlassian's tech tools, like Jira, helps manage the end-to-end development and release process."
"The most valuable features are compiling and deployment."
"Bamboo was used extensively in our organization for PCA compliance."
"In Bamboo, build and deployment have been segregated. The build plan and deployment plan are different. When comparing Bamboo to other solutions, the native feature you will not find in another tool, such as Jenkins. They have segregated the build and deployment plan. This means, building the application and deploying it are two separate parts in Bamboo, they have segregated it apart from the UI. This makes the tool a bit better compared to other tools."
"It can do the CI pipeline well."
"One of the significant benefits of Bamboo is its built-in support for numerous clients and the ability to tailor its capabilities to your specific requirements. This high level of customization enables you to create pipelines that are ideally suited to your needs, making it an invaluable tool for conducting advanced testing."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"It's a little outdated. It's three years old."
"Bamboo is a bit complicated to use compared to other solutions, such as GitLab. You have to integrate different actions that are difficult that could be made easier."
"Scalability depends on the use case. If it is really a big customer with a lot of tests, it might not be a scalable option for them."
"One area that could be enhanced is the governance process, particularly with regard to building approvals and transitions between stages. In comparison to other solutions, such as Jira, which features a workflow that supports approval processes, this capability is not natively available in Bamboo. To implement this functionality, integration with other solutions, such as GSM may be necessary. Although some add-ons, such as Adaptavist ScriptRunner, are available in the market to circumvent this limitation, they may not offer the exact functionality needed. Therefore, there is certainly room for improvement in this area."
"The performance around the deployment feature could be improved."
"It would be great if Bamboo could introduce a more containerized deployment model."
"Bamboo could improve by having compatibility with GitLab. It would be better to have this platform for deploying code and storing container registries. Bamboo does not have a container registry. Additionally, there could be more features added."
"It should be much easier to use. It shouldn't require a lot of reading to be able to use it. It should have just two or three screens rather than hundreds of screens requiring a lot of clicking. It also requires a lot of integration. It has a steep learning curve. It takes a lot of time to understand and put in the data. There is also no proper training."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Bamboo is ranked 5th in Build Automation with 20 reviews while GNU Make is ranked 26th in Build Automation. Bamboo is rated 7.4, while GNU Make is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Bamboo writes "High availability, helpful support, and plenty of plugins available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". Bamboo is most compared with GitLab, Jenkins, GitHub Actions, Harness and Tekton, whereas GNU Make is most compared with Jenkins and Bazel.
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.