We performed a comparison between CircleCI 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."Some of the most valuable features include container-based builds, integration with Bit Bucket and being able to store artifacts."
"It's a stable product."
"The automation workflow in CircleCI related to third-party applications is very good and allows standardization of applications."
"The ability to automate the build process in a seamless way and run workflows effortlessly. It supports parallel builds so it can scale well. Also, it covers the basics of any build and integration tool, including email notifications (especially when tests are fixed), project insights, etc."
"The solution offers continuous integration and continuous delivery."
"Enables us to detect exactly which build failed and why, and to push multiple builds to our production environment at a very fast rate."
"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."
"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."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"The solution’s pricing could be better."
"Billing is a mess."
"There needs to be some improvement in the user interface of CircleCI."
"Integration with Microsoft Azure is one area for improvement. Azure is growing in its user base, and supports various cloud infrastructure components such as Service Fabric, App Service, etc. Some of Azure’s deployment models (like Kudu) require a steep learning curve, but if CircleCI would come up with such features (deployment to App Service) out of the box, it would be amazing."
"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
CircleCI is ranked 11th in Build Automation with 5 reviews while GNU Make is ranked 26th in Build Automation. CircleCI is rated 6.6, while GNU Make is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CircleCI writes "Unhelpful support, unclear billing, and has offers ability to track usage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". CircleCI is most compared with TeamCity, Tekton, Jenkins, GitHub Actions and AWS CodeBuild, 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.
