We performed a comparison between GitLab 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 solution is stable."
"The stability is good."
"The code merging capability is something that we use very frequently."
"GitLab's best feature is Actions."
"The solution's service delivery model is fantastic."
"Everything is easy to configure and easy to work with."
"GitLab is being used as a repository for our codebase and it is a one stop DevOps tool we use in our team."
"CI/CD and GitLab scanning are the most valuable features."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"There was a problem with the build environment when we were looking at developing iOS applications. iOS build require Mac machines and there are no Mac machines provided by GitLab in their cloud. So to build for mobile iOS application, we needed to use our own Mac machine within our own infrastructure. If GitLab were to provide a feature such that an iOS application could also be built through GitLab directly, that would be great."
"We do face issues in our company when we run out of disk space."
"It should be used by a larger number of people. They should raise awareness."
"The documentation could be improved to help newcomers better understand things like creating new branches."
"Their RBAC is role-based access, which is fine but not very good."
"We have only seen a couple of issues on Gitlab, which we use for building some of the applications."
"The solution could improve by providing more integration into the CI/CD pipeline, an autocomplete search tool, and more supporting documentation."
"The integration and storage capabilities could be better."
"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
GitLab is ranked 1st in Build Automation with 70 reviews while GNU Make is ranked 26th in Build Automation. GitLab is rated 8.6, while GNU Make is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, SonarQube 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.
