We performed a comparison between GNU Make and TeamCity based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Jenkins, Google and others in Build Automation."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."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"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."
"VCS Trigger: Provides excellent source control support."
"The flexibility of TeamCity allows it to fit in workflows that I have yet to imagine."
"It provides repeatable CI/CD throughout our company with lots of feedback on failures and successes to the intended audiences via email and Slack."
"TeamCity is very useful due to the fact that it has a strong plug-in system."
"TeamCity's GUI is nice."
"TeamCity is a very user-friendly tool."
"Good integration with IDE and JetBrains products."
"Time to deployment has been reduced in situations where we want to deploy to production or deploy breaking changes."
"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."
"REST API support lacks many features in customization of builds, jobs, and settings."
"We've called TeamCity tech support. Unfortunately, all their tech support is based in Europe, so we end up with such a big time crunch that I now need to have one person in the US."
"The UI for this solution could be improved. New users don't find it easy to navigate. The need some level of training to understand the ins and the outs."
"The upgrade process could be smoother. Upgrading major versions can often cause some pain."
"It will benefit this solution if they keep up to date with other CI/CD systems out there."
"I would suggest creating simple and advanced configurations. Advanced configurations will give more customizations like Jenkins does."
"I need some more graphical design."
"Last time I used it, dotnet compilation had to be done via PowerShell scripts. There was actually a lot that had to be scripted."
Earn 20 points
GNU Make is ranked 26th in Build Automation while TeamCity is ranked 6th in Build Automation with 25 reviews. GNU Make is rated 8.2, while TeamCity is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". On the other hand, the top reviewer of TeamCity writes "Build management system used to successfully create full request tests and run security scans". GNU Make is most compared with Jenkins and Bazel, whereas TeamCity is most compared with GitLab, CircleCI, Jenkins, Harness and Tekton.
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.
