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."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."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"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."
"TeamCity is very useful due to the fact that it has a strong plug-in system."
"The integration is a valuable feature."
"The flexibility of TeamCity allows it to fit in workflows that I have yet to imagine."
"Using TeamCity and emailing everyone on fail is one way to emphasize the importance of testing code and showing management why taking the time to test actually does saves time from having to fix bugs on the other end."
"It provides repeatable CI/CD throughout our company with lots of feedback on failures and successes to the intended audiences via email and Slack."
"We would like to see better integration with other version controls, since we encountered difficulty when this we first attempted."
"One of the most beneficial features for us is the flexibility it offers in creating deployment steps tailored to different technologies."
"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."
"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."
"It will benefit this solution if they keep up to date with other CI/CD systems out there."
"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."
"REST API support lacks many features in customization of builds, jobs, and settings."
"If there was more documentation that was easier to locate, it would be helpful for users."
"I would suggest creating simple and advanced configurations. Advanced configurations will give more customizations like Jenkins does."
"The upgrade process could be smoother. Upgrading major versions can often cause some pain."
"I need some more graphical design."
"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."
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.