Compare GNU Make vs. Harness

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
GNU Make Logo
486 views|377 comparisons
Harness Logo
2,831 views|2,661 comparisons
Ranking
16th
out of 32 in Build Automation
Views
486
Comparisons
377
Reviews
0
Average Words per Review
0
Rating
N/A
11th
out of 32 in Build Automation
Views
2,831
Comparisons
2,661
Reviews
0
Average Words per Review
0
Rating
N/A
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Jenkins, Google and others in Build Automation. Updated: August 2021.
533,638 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Comparisons
Learn More
Harness
Video Not Available
Overview
Make is a tool which controls the generation of executables and other non-source files of a program from the program's source files.

Harness is the first Continuous Delivery-as-a-Service platform that uses Machine Learning to simplify the entire process of delivering code from artifact into production – quickly, safely, securely, and repeatably.

Offer
Learn more about GNU Make
Learn more about Harness
Sample Customers
Information Not Available
Linedata, Openbank, Home Depot, Advanced
Top Industries
No Data Available
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Computer Software Company23%
Financial Services Firm22%
Comms Service Provider12%
Retailer9%
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Jenkins, Google and others in Build Automation. Updated: August 2021.
533,638 professionals have used our research since 2012.

GNU Make is ranked 16th in Build Automation while Harness is ranked 11th in Build Automation. GNU Make is rated 0.0, while Harness is rated 0.0. On the other hand, GNU Make is most compared with Jenkins, whereas Harness is most compared with Jenkins, Bamboo, CircleCI, TeamCity and AWS CodePipeline.

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.