We performed a comparison between IBM Rational Build Forge and Jenkins based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Jenkins, Google and others in Build Automation."All features are useful. Our customer doesn't have any complaints about the tool. It works pretty well for what they want and what they need to do."
"Very good reporting features."
"Jenkins is very stable."
"Continuous Integration. Jenkins can integrate with almost any systems used for application development and testing, with its plugins."
"Automation of chores like deployment, frequent manual tasks (like running scripts on test and production systems) reduced the time used and the number of errors made by engineers, freeing them to do meaningful work instead."
"We can schedule anything with Jenkins, which is useful for deployment or anything that requires scheduling. It also has multiple plugins we can use for Maven, JUnit, etc."
"Jenkins is very user-friendly."
"I like the business logs. It's a very useful tool. Client-server communication is also very fast."
"The most valuable features of Jenkins are creating builds, and connecting them with Sonar for Sonar analysis. Additionally, we connect it with other vulnerability tools, such as WhiteSource which is useful."
"For business needs, Jenkins is the most relevant choice because it can be self-hosted, the price is good, it’s robust, and requires almost no effort for maintenance."
"Not user friendly for the layman."
"Its logging can be improved. When something goes wrong, it is not always very easy to find the problem. It is hard to identify whether the problem is because of low memory in the server or some configuration in Rational Build Forge. The error logs are not very detailed, and they should provide more information. It should also have more integration with third-party tools. It would be great to have more integration with third-party tools."
"The user interface could be updated a little."
"Jenkins needs a faster deployment process."
"It does not have a very user-friendly interface."
"There are a lot of things that they can try to improvise. They can reduce a lot of configurations. It is currently supporting Groovy for scripting. It would be really good if it can be improvised for Python because, for most of the automation, we have Python as a script. It would be good if can also support Python. We have a lot of Android builds. These Android builds can be a part of Jenkins. It can have some plug-ins or configurations for Android builds. There should also be some internal matrix to check the performance. We also want to have more REST API support, which is currently not much in Jenkins. We are not able to get more information about running Jenkins. More REST API support should be provided."
"The solution's UI can use a facelift and the logs can use more detailed information."
"Jenkins is not an easy solution to use and the configuration is not simple. They can improve the solution by adding a graphical interface that is more user-friendly."
"We cannot change the ownership of any directory or file or any kind of directory."
"The solution could improve by having more advanced integrations."
Earn 20 points
IBM Rational Build Forge is ranked 19th in Build Automation while Jenkins is ranked 2nd in Build Automation with 83 reviews. IBM Rational Build Forge is rated 9.0, while Jenkins is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of IBM Rational Build Forge writes "Great reporting features and very functional". 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". IBM Rational Build Forge is most compared with Bamboo and Digital.ai Release , whereas Jenkins is most compared with GitLab, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, Tekton and Harness.
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.
