We performed a comparison between AWS CodePipeline and GNU Make based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about GitLab, Jenkins, Google and others in Build Automation."Code deployment is the best feature."
"AWS CodePipeline offers multiple integrations and it has its own set of features in the area of code scanning and dynamic code testing."
"The most valuable feature of AWS CodePipeline is the flexibility of the configuration."
"The product is a one-stop solution that you can use to integrate, deploy and host your application."
"It's a perfect solution if you are just using AWS."
"The product is cost-effective and integrates well with the AWS environment."
"The tool's recent version helps us to run pipelines in parallel. The integration with other AWS services has greatly impacted our use of AWS CodePipeline. It made tasks such as integrating with Jira and provisioning instances much easier."
"The integrations are good."
"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."
"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."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"There could be a possibility of deploying tag-based conditions for different environments using the same code base."
"AWS CodePipeline doesn't offer much room for customization."
"If there are many dependancies involved in the setup, it may take a long time."
"The product’s pricing needs improvement."
"The setup time is a bit long."
"The tool does not provide automated features for evidence collection."
"In the next release, I would like to see fewer timeout errors."
"The support team’s response time must be improved."
"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."
Earn 20 points
AWS CodePipeline is ranked 4th in Build Automation with 13 reviews while GNU Make is ranked 26th in Build Automation. AWS CodePipeline is rated 8.4, while GNU Make is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS CodePipeline writes "A fully managed service with excellent integrations and a flexible architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". AWS CodePipeline is most compared with GitLab, AWS CodeStar, Jenkins, GitHub Actions and Tekton, whereas GNU Make is most compared with Jenkins and Bazel.
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.
