We performed a comparison between GNU Make and Jenkins based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Build Automation solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"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."
"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."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"Jenkins is very easy to use."
"Jenkins optimizes the CI/CD process, enhances automation, and ensures efficiency and management of our build and deployment pipeline."
"I love Jenkins. I like that you work on anything, and you make anything. Jenkins is very important for my team. I am satisfied with the product."
"This is a great integration tool and very powerful."
"Jenkins is stable, user-friendly, and helps with continuous integration. As of today, I can't see any tool that's better than Jenkins."
"The solution is scalable and concurrent users have access to the platform."
"A lot of support material exists via a single web search of exactly what you're looking for."
"The initial setup is simple."
"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."
"There is no way for the cloud repositories to trigger Jenkins."
"I would like to have an integrated dashboard on top of it and a better UX to look at. The dashboard could be better in terms of integration with other tools. We should be able to have a single pane of glass across all the tools that we use where Jenkins is the pipeline. This can be a very good upgrade to it."
"Support should be provided at no cost, as there is no free support available for any of the free versions."
"I would like them to provide space for people to have a central node that stores all the logs of workspace information in a distributed fashion to facilitate backup and restoration. Currently, everything is stored on one node, so you need to set up distributed storage or an endpoint that you can use for backing up your information."
"A more user-friendly UI for creating pipelines would be helpful."
"Some kind of SaaS product would be helpful in providing organizational structure."
"The onboarding of Jenkins should be smoother, and it should have more pipelines available as it's deployed on many different servers."
"It would be helpful if they had a bit more interactive UI."
Earn 20 points
GNU Make is ranked 25th in Build Automation while Jenkins is ranked 2nd in Build Automation with 83 reviews. GNU Make is rated 8.2, while Jenkins is rated 8.0. 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 Jenkins writes "A highly-scalable and stable solution that reduces deployment time and produces a significant return on investment". GNU Make is most compared with Bazel, whereas Jenkins is most compared with GitLab, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, IBM Rational Build Forge and CircleCI. See our GNU Make vs. Jenkins report.
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.