We performed a comparison between AWS CodePipeline 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 integrations are good."
"The integration with other applications is fabulous."
"AWS CodePipeline has valuable integration features."
"I find performance to be the most valuable CodePipeline feature. It works perfectly and smoothly."
"The product is cost-effective and integrates well with the AWS environment."
"AWS CodePipeline offers multiple integrations and it has its own set of features in the area of code scanning and dynamic code testing."
"In AWS, the Cloud DevOps is a managed service from CodeCommit and this has removed the need for a lot of manual steps."
"It's a perfect solution if you are just using AWS."
"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."
"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."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"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."
"The setup time is a bit long."
"AWS CodePipeline functions well, but there's room for improvement in providing technical support to regular customers who haven't purchased developer support. I mean, having it available for everyone, even if it's not a 24-hour service. It would be more useful if specific support hours were available for assistance."
"The tool does not provide automated features for evidence collection."
"The migration process from one source code to another needs improvement."
"AWS CodePipeline doesn't offer much room for customization."
"The solution could improve the documentation. Sometimes we have some issues with the documentation not updating after releasing .NET 6. We had some issues with building the code pipeline, and it was not updating the documentation. It's better to update the code documentation."
"The support team’s response time must be improved."
"If you're talking about multi-cloud, you can't use it."
"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."
"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."
Earn 20 points
AWS CodePipeline is ranked 4th in Build Automation with 13 reviews while GNU Make is ranked 26th in Build Automation. AWS CodePipeline is rated 8.4, while GNU Make is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS CodePipeline writes "A fully managed service with excellent integrations and a flexible architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". AWS CodePipeline is most compared with GitLab, AWS CodeStar, Jenkins, GitHub Actions 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.
