AWS CodeBuild vs GNU Make comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and GNU are both solutions in the Build Automation category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.2, while GNU is ranked #17 with an average rating of 9.0. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 1.5% mindshare in BA, compared to GNU’s 0.7% mindshare. Additionally, 91% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of GNU users who would recommend it.

AWS CodeBuild

Read 12 AWS CodeBuild reviews

548 Views
548 Comparison Views

91% willing to recommend

GNU Make

Read 6 GNU Make reviews

250 Views
250 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

AWS CodeBuild

GNU Make

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

GNU Make and AWS CodeBuild compete in software build automation. AWS CodeBuild has an advantage in scalability and feature richness, which can justify its expense for organizations requiring comprehensive build solutions, while GNU Make excels in simplicity and cost-effectiveness.

Features: GNU Make uses a straightforward makefile approach, efficiently managing dependencies and automation for simple projects. It supports static pattern rules and non-standard makefile names using flags. AWS CodeBuild supports integration with AWS services, automatic scaling, and provides a seamless CI/CD pipeline experience, supporting varying platforms and coding operations.

Room for Improvement: GNU Make could benefit from enhanced support for complex projects, a graphical user interface, and improved documentation. AWS CodeBuild might improve by offering more pricing options, enhancing integration with non-AWS services, and simplifying setup processes further to cater to smaller teams.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GNU Make is appreciated for its quick setup and simplicity, ideal for small projects, but offers limited customer support. AWS CodeBuild, part of the AWS ecosystem, offers seamless integration and extensive documentation, coupled with robust customer service options suitable for larger or more complex projects.

Pricing and ROI: GNU Make is free and open-source, providing a high ROI for suitable projects. AWS CodeBuild involves usage-based pricing, offering compelling ROI through scalability and extensive integration with AWS services, making it a beneficial investment for organizations requiring comprehensive solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed AWS CodeBuild vs. GNU Make Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

AWS CodeBuild vs. GNU Make

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

AWS CodeBuild

Ranking in Build Automation

8th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

GNU Make

Ranking in Build Automation

17th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of AWS CodeBuild is 1.5%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GNU Make is 0.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Build Automation

Featured Reviews

Mahadev Metre

DevOps Engineer at Paydoh

Integration with diverse environments boosts productivity and automation

AWS CodeBuild's support for a wide range of programming languages and build environments benefits development teams significantly in terms of productivity and ease of use. There are extensive libraries of code structures available, making it a universal pipeline. All programming languages I have worked with are supported in AWS CodeBuild, eliminating the need for alternative deployment services. The service supports iOS builds, Kotlin, Java, NodeJS, and ReactJS. AWS has made it accessible to all languages, allowing developers to simply open the console and trigger builds. AWS manages all the background server operations for building or deploying code. For standard builds such as ReactJS or Java, a Linux or Ubuntu server suffices. AWS provides its own operating system for these purposes. For builds requiring physical servers, such as Apple macOS server, AWS rents Mac minis specifically for iOS and SwiftUI builds. While this incurs higher charges, it demonstrates AWS's commitment to providing comprehensive solutions for all use cases.

Read full review

reviewer2561757

Software at a computer software company with 201-500 employees

Enhances productivity with efficient dependency handling and a straightforward setup

GNU Make is used as a build system tool. Most people don't use GNU Make directly but utilize other systems like CMake to generate Make files, which are then run by GNU Make. This is common for tasks like compiling C++ code. In the industry, AI developers, for example, use GNU Make in their work…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"AWS CodeBuild reduces wait time and optimizes workflows."

"CodeBuild supports various platforms and coding."

"The integration is a good feature."

"The integration with other AWS services has streamlined our workflow."

"One of the main features I value in CodeBuild compared to previous experiences, like using Jenkins, is its ability to handle tasks automatically with AWS, requiring only proper setup of the check file."

"It works seamlessly with AWS Elastic Container Registry (ECR)."

"A valuable feature is the support for third-party repositories such as Bitbucket, GitLab, or GitHub."

"The integration is a good feature."

More AWS CodeBuild pros

"The initial setup of GNU Make is straightforward."

"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."

"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."

"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."

Cons

"The deployment fails sometimes."

"There is no persistent storage or preservation of workspace between the builds."

"For improvement, I'd suggest more build instance-type options. There's a big jump from 15 gigabytes of RAM to 150, and I'd like something in between as the larger option is too expensive for our needs."

"We had integration issues with a tool called Octopus Deploy while using CodeBuild. AWS support helped us resolve it, however, it could be better."

"Multiple clients have faced issues with pricing. After migrating from Azure to EC2, they were unexpectedly charged 100,000 rupees because the pricing details were not clearly visible."

"Notifications could be added, or SNS integration could be included so that notifications can be received on every build, whether the build fails or succeeds."

"There have been times when CodeBuild has shown some instability, like bugs or breakdowns."

"One of the main challenges is that if the environment is not set up properly, it will result in issues such as image errors."

More AWS CodeBuild cons

"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."

"GNU Make does not provide traditional customer support."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"AWS CodeBuild is free. We only pay for our code's compute resources during the build process. For example, if our code takes ten minutes to build, we only pay for those ten minutes of computing time. CodeDeploy and CodePipeline are free because they're serverless and don't require computing resources. CodeCommit has minimal costs for storing code."

"We pay a monthly licensing fee."

"Despite the cost, it is worth the investment."

"GNU Make is free and open source software."

"There is no price for this product. No licensing. It’s open-source."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

16%

Media Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

10%

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AWS CodeBuild?

It works seamlessly with AWS Elastic Container Registry (ECR).

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for AWS CodeBuild?

The cost structure is affordable for most builds except macOS servers. Standard builds can utilize AWS EC2 servers for background operations. However, macOS or iOS builds require physical servers m...

See all answers

What needs improvement with AWS CodeBuild?

The servers used for macOS and iOS builds are limited in availability, operating only in US East 1 and East 2, and US West 1 and West 2. This geographical limitation causes latency issues and exten...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for GNU Make?

GNU Make is a free solution that comes with Linux, which positively impacts operational costs by eliminating licensing fees.

See all answers

What needs improvement with GNU Make?

I am not familiar enough with it to suggest any specific new features or areas for improvement. It occupies its niche well.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for GNU Make?

See all answers

Comparisons

GitHub Actions vs AWS CodeBuild

Compared 37% of the time

AWS CodePipeline vs AWS CodeBuild

Compared 23% of the time

GitLab vs AWS CodeBuild

Compared 22% of the time

Jenkins vs AWS CodeBuild

Compared 18% of the time

More AWS CodeBuild Competitors

Jenkins vs GNU Make

Compared 68% of the time

Bazel vs GNU Make

Compared 32% of the time

More GNU Make Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

AWS CodeBuild

August 2025

Download AWS CodeBuild product report

Buyer's Guide

Build Automation

July 2025

Download GNU Make product report

Also Known As

CodeBuild

No data available

Overview

AWS CodeBuild is a fully managed continuous integration service that compiles source code, runs tests, and produces software packages that are ready to deploy. With CodeBuild, you don’t need to provision, manage, and scale your own build servers. CodeBuild scales continuously and processes multiple builds concurrently, so your builds are not left waiting in a queue. You can get started quickly by using prepackaged build environments, or you can create custom build environments that use your own build tools. With CodeBuild, you are charged by the minute for the compute resources you use.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Make is a tool which controls the generation of executables and other non-source files of a program from the program's source files.

GNU

Sample Customers

Expedia, Intuit, Royal Dutch Shell, Brooks Brothers

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

AWS CodeBuild vs. GNU Make

July 2025

Free Report: AWS CodeBuild vs. GNU Make

Find out what your peers are saying about AWS CodeBuild vs. GNU Make and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our AWS CodeBuild vs. GNU Make 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.