Buildkite vs GNU Make comparison

Buildkite and GNU are both solutions in the Build Automation category. Buildkite is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.2, while GNU is ranked #16 with an average rating of 9.0. Buildkite holds a 2.8% mindshare in BA, compared to GNU’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of Buildkite users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of GNU users who would recommend it.

Buildkite

Read 14 Buildkite reviews

710 Views
696 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

GNU Make

Read 6 GNU Make reviews

412 Views
396 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Buildkite

GNU Make

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

GNU Make and Buildkite operate in the build automation and CI/CD pipeline category. Buildkite appears to have the upper hand due to its superior automation capabilities and extensive integrations, justifying its higher cost.

Features: GNU Make stands out with its reliability in managing code compilation tasks, support for scripts in various languages, and seamless integration with dependency builder tools like Automake. Buildkite shines with automated parallelization, a wide range of integrations, and cloud-native architecture.

Room for Improvement: GNU Make could benefit from a graphical user interface, improved beginner support, and enhanced integration flexibility with modern platforms. Buildkite might improve by reducing its initial learning curve, expanding cost-effectiveness for smaller teams, and minimizing dependency on YAML for configurations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GNU Make requires manual setup managed by developers, which can be a challenge for beginners. Buildkite offers a managed service with streamlined deployment and extensive documentation, making integration easier for teams. Buildkite's customer support is often praised for being responsive and effective, while GNU Make relies more on community support.

Pricing and ROI: GNU Make, being open-source, has no direct setup costs, appealing to budget-conscious projects. Buildkite involves higher costs due to a subscription-based model but tends to result in higher ROI through automation efficiencies. GNU Make is cost-efficient for smaller projects, whereas Buildkite provides greater value for large-scale operations.

To learn more, read our detailed Buildkite vs. GNU Make Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Buildkite vs. GNU Make

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,114 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

Buildkite

Ranking in Build Automation

8th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

GNU Make

Ranking in Build Automation

16th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of Buildkite is 2.8%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GNU Make is 1.5%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Build Automation Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Buildkite	2.8%
GNU Make	1.5%
Other	95.7%

Build Automation

Featured Reviews

Raed I.Habib

Senior DevOps Engineer at a newspaper with 5,001-10,000 employees

Easy-to-use and provides good documentation for managing agents

Buildkite has been pushing a lot of effort toward the plugin marketplace and plugin users, especially with the Kubernetes plugin that supports the scalability of agents. The flexibility of some plugins is somewhat limited. In the past, I used to modify the plugins according to my needs. Now, plugins support some sort of configuration or reconfiguration. I would love to see some features added in that direction and the plugin's use. I would like to see some improvements in the hooks implementation. The hooks are amazing and give me a lot of extra flexibility in many of the pipelines, but they're still limited in some areas.

Read full review

Josh Call

Software Engineer 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

"They have great plugins, scalability, UI, and pipeline options. They also offer webhooks that allow integration with custom setups to send events dynamically."

"Buildkite's UI is particularly intuitive, making it simple to add steps to your pipeline. It also provides detailed logging."

"What I like best about Buildkite is its workflow management. You define YAML files to specify what needs to be done. The jobs can run based on a schedule, like a cron job, where you set it to run every night or every week. Additionally, you can set up triggers, such as new pushes to a repository."

"Buildkite makes it easier to conduct deployment. When I merge a PR in Buildkite, it automatically starts the deployment process. It used to be challenging to shift code from the development branch to the testing branch because I had to follow up with multiple developers. Previously, I was dependent on the DevOps team and developers to handle deployments, but now it allows me to deploy the solutions myself.This has made it much easier for me to handle both non-production and production environments."

"The documentation is quite helpful."

"If you join our team, it's very easy to learn Buildkite. We have our own boilerplate, so you can just clone it and add your configuration steps. Plus, we have documentation available to guide you through the process."

"The solution can be considered as a very well-polished platform with a really great UI."

"The tool's flexibility with pipelines gave us a lot of advantages, especially when managing a huge amount of microservices."

More Buildkite pros

"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."

"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."

"The initial setup of GNU Make is 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."

Cons

"The way Buildkite represents workflows can be challenging. It uses Directed Acyclic Graphs, and there's a trade-off between abstraction and understanding what goes wrong when something fails. When a layer of jobs breaks down, it can be difficult to identify the issue at first glance. Additionally, logging can be cumbersome. I prefer GitHub Workflows."

"Based on the load, the agents can be scaled up and scaled down, and while they are scaling up, sometimes they just get stuck."

"There is a need for rework occasionally, and issues like syntax errors can occur multiple times, especially when manual changes are made in AWS or Amazon Connect that are not captured in the code."

"My company has had problems with the tool's parallel running and execution time. The testing framework also has some limitations. The tool cannot do everything."

"Since we were using Buildkite for the first time, we had a lot of difficulty understanding how it worked. We didn't find any documentation from third parties; only Buildkite provided documentation. As a result, we faced a steep learning curve. After some time, it became much easier to use. Initially, understanding certain features, like the R integration, was challenging."

"BuildKite should follow some providers like GitHub Actions. They can offer a shared agent or cloud agent."

"As a newbie, I think BuildKite has several issues. For example, it can't get the status of a PR once it's closed. The syntax is easy to use, but updating a pipeline requires administrator settings, and viewing pipelines for others isn't straightforward."

"Buildkite has issues while creating or extending branches as only the first five builds in the user-interface can be accessed and post that one has to access the next builds by remembering branch names without pagination which can be inconvenient."

More Buildkite cons

"GNU Make does not provide traditional customer support."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We used the solution’s free version."

"Buildkite is known to be cheaper than GitHub Workflows, which is considered a standard in the industry. It can be cost-effective, especially for organizations that heavily utilize Docker and containerization, because every code change triggers a new build. Its integration with AWS, particularly with ECR, and its caching capabilities with layers are powerful features."

"I find Buildkite cost-effective as it has definitely increased my productivity, especially on the deployment side. It saved a lot of my time and improved data management because I can handle different environments myself now."

"I don't think the tool is expensive."

"For a business plan, it was 19 USD per month per user."

"The self-hosted option is pretty cheap."

"The solution's per-user pricing model suits huge enterprises but is expensive for small to medium businesses."

"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

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

17%

Newspaper

15%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Computer Software Company

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	7
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	6

No data available

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Buildkite?

One area that needs improvement in Buildkite is the requirement for rework of the code. There can be syntax errors when running the Buildkite pipeline, especially if someone has made manual changes...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Buildkite?

I use Buildkite for deployment tasks related to building AMI images and deploying routing profile queues into Amazon Connect. This involves using Buildkite in conjunction with GitHub. We create fil...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Buildkite?

With two years of experience on Buildkite, I would recommend it to others due to its manageable pipeline and the support team available for big issues. I am satisfied with it, rating its stability ...

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 Buildkite

Compared 23% of the time

GitLab vs Buildkite

Compared 12% of the time

Harness vs Buildkite

Compared 12% of the time

Tekton vs Buildkite

Compared 11% of the time

Nx vs Buildkite

Compared 9% of the time

More Buildkite Competitors

Jenkins vs GNU Make

Compared 41% of the time

Bazel vs GNU Make

Compared 23% of the time

CloudBees vs GNU Make

Compared 19% of the time

TeamCity vs GNU Make

Compared 17% of the time

More GNU Make Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Buildkite

January 2026

Download Buildkite product report

Buyer's Guide

Build Automation

January 2026

Download GNU Make product report

Overview

Buildkite is a powerful CI/CD tool praised for its scalability and flexibility in automating and managing complex workflows across multiple platforms. Its integration capabilities with various systems and supports for secure, customizable environments enhance development efficiency and data privacy. The feedback highlights significant boosts in productivity and operational cost reduction, making Buildkite a strategic asset for businesses aiming to streamline development tasks and align with organizational goals.

Buildkite

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

Buyer's Guide

Buildkite vs. GNU Make

December 2025

Free Report: Buildkite vs. GNU Make

Find out what your peers are saying about Buildkite vs. GNU Make and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,114 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Buildkite 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.