We performed a comparison between GNU Make and TeamCity 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."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."
"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."
"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."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is its easy configuration. It also has multiple plugins that can be used especially for building .net applications."
"The integration is a valuable feature."
"Good integration with IDE and JetBrains products."
"TeamCity's GUI is nice."
"I have not yet implemented the remote build feature, but this will be a big plus. We want to be able to build legacy products on a build agent without developers needing to have obsolete tool sets installed on their local PC."
"One of the most beneficial features for us is the flexibility it offers in creating deployment steps tailored to different technologies."
"We would like to see better integration with other version controls, since we encountered difficulty when this we first attempted."
"It's easy to move to a new release because of templates and meta-runners, and agent pooling."
"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."
"I would suggest creating simple and advanced configurations. Advanced configurations will give more customizations like Jenkins does."
"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 upgrade process could be smoother. Upgrading major versions can often cause some pain."
"REST API support lacks many features in customization of builds, jobs, and settings."
"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."
"Their online documentation is fairly extensive, but sometimes you can end up navigating in circles to find answers. I would like them (or partner with someone) to provide training classes to help newcomers get things up and running more quickly."
"It will benefit this solution if they keep up to date with other CI/CD systems out there."
"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 25th 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 GitHub Actions. See our GNU Make vs. TeamCity 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.