We performed a comparison between GNU Make and Jenkins based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Jenkins, Google and others in Build Automation."I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"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."
"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."
"The solution is scalable and has a large number of plugins that can help you scale it to your needs."
"Jenkins is very user-friendly."
"We used it for all continuous integration parts, like automation testing, deployment, etc."
"The solution is scalable and concurrent users have access to the platform."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is that there are multiple features. We can abstract certain variables and then build our deployment routine while being able to do some abstraction onto the SSH connections."
"We have started to integrate Pipelines as a part of a build, and built a library of common functions. It simplified and made our build scripts more readable."
"Jenkins has built good plugins and has a good security platform."
"It is a stable solution."
"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."
"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."
"This solution would be improved with the inclusion of an Artifactory (Universal artifact repository manager)."
"The UI of Jenkins could improve."
"Partition security for the workflow of projects is not yet an option."
"There are some difficulties when we need to execute the DB script."
"The product should provide more visualization as to how many pipelines are performing and how many builds are happening. It should also integrate with Kubernetes and OpenShift."
"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."
"Improvement-wise, I would want the solution's user interface to be changed for the better. In short, the solution can be made more user-friendly."
Earn 20 points
GNU Make is ranked 26th 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 Tekton.
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.
