Chef vs GNU Make comparison

Why PeerSpot?

Progress Software and GNU are both solutions in the Build Automation category. Progress Software is ranked #14 with an average rating of 7.6, while GNU is ranked #24. Progress Software holds a 2.1% mindshare in BA, compared to GNU’s 1.8% mindshare. Additionally, 93% of Progress Software users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of GNU users who would recommend it.

Chef

Read 26 Chef reviews

6,460 Views
1,938 Comparison Views

93% willing to recommend

GNU Make

Read 6 GNU Make reviews

1,588 Views
1,509 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Chef

GNU Make

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

Chef and GNU Make compete in the automation space within the software development lifecycle. Chef is perceived as having the upper hand due to its comprehensive configuration management tools and advanced features, while GNU Make is favored for its simplicity and performance in specific use cases.

Features: Chef provides robust infrastructure automation, allowing extensive customization and scalability. It excels in managing complex environments and continuous delivery pipelines. Its features align with professional environments demanding full-stack development. GNU Make's strengths lie in its simplicity, efficiency, and compatibility with various systems, especially for automating repetitive tasks within smaller projects. It offers optimized code compilation and can easily build targets by integrating with other utilities.

Room for Improvement: Chef could enhance its user interface and streamline deployment processes to be more user-friendly for smaller teams. Additionally, improving rollback capabilities would be beneficial. GNU Make could develop a more comprehensive customer support system and introduce a graphical interface to widen accessibility. Enhancing its integration features with other automation tools would also add value.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Chef offers structured deployment models with substantial enterprise-level support, appealing to businesses needing detailed configuration and customer assistance. GNU Make follows a straightforward, lightweight deployment strategy, ideal for smaller teams but provides limited customer support.

Pricing and ROI: Chef involves higher setup costs with significant ROI for large-scale operations due to expanded features and scalability. In contrast, GNU Make, being open-source, offers minimal setup costs, delivering substantial ROI for smaller projects thanks to its simplicity and low operational demands, making it financially appealing for teams with constrained budgets.

To learn more, read our detailed Chef vs. GNU Make Report (Updated: November 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Chef vs. GNU Make

November 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 921,665 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

Chef

Ranking in Build Automation

14th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

6.6

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Release Automation (8th), Configuration Management (8th)

GNU Make

Ranking in Build Automation

24th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of Chef is 2.1%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GNU Make is 1.8%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Build Automation Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Chef	2.1%
GNU Make	1.8%
Other	96.1%

Build Automation

Featured Reviews

G Srivastava

Senior Cloud Engineer at a tech services company with 201-500 employees

Agent setup and complexity have limited automation benefits but have reduced manual patching work

There are other automation tools, configuration management tools in the market, which offer many good functionalities compared to Chef. For Chef, we need to install those agents, the Chef client, on all those nodes. That is another heinous task to perform on those nodes. Compared with other tools, they do not require any agent; they simply push configurations to all the clients. Chef needs to improve on this agent installation on all those nodes. I would say that the agent configuration is required, and we need to manage the workstation, the Chef server, and then the Chef client. These two or three things are very difficult. It is a time-taking task compared with other configuration management tools. They need to compete with other tools, such as Ansible or Terraform. They should work on their agent part. If they can remove the agent installation on the nodes and combine both the Chef server and workstation into one server, that will provide a significant benefit in cost for the clients. They should aim for an agentless architecture rather than an agent-based architecture, which will help other customers. That is a very difficult thing because I have stopped using Chef. If you have very good developers who are skilled in Ruby language and can write codes in the Chef recipe, then those developers should start using Chef.

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

"We have seen a lot of ROI, our customers really enjoy the tool, and we are able to save in development time and deployment time, making it easier to manage the environments."

"The most valuable feature is its easy configuration management, optimization abilities, complete infrastructure and application automation, and its superiority over other similar tools."

"The solution is easy to use and learn, and it easily automates all the code and infrastructure."

"Manual deployments came to a halt completely. Server provisioning became lightning fast."

"The features are good in Chef, especially its compliance feature; it's very good and it's what I found most valuable in the tool."

"The manual work has been reduced with the help of this automation, we only need two or three people to write those recipes and upload them on the Chef server, and once the configuration tool pulls those changes from the Chef server, it automatically deploys all those changes and has reduced our manpower and our costs."

"All the Chef enthusiasts who come to us to learn and train improve their skillsets to get jobs."

"You set it and forget it. You don't have to worry about the reliability or the deviations from any of the other configurations."

More Chef pros

"Setup is extremely straightforward."

"I think this product has all you need."

"The initial setup of GNU Make is 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."

"One of the best things about GNU Make is that, it is available on almost all Linux platforms."

"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."

"Make tool, originally made for the GNU operating system, helps in the generation of executable from the main program source files."

"GNU make is a build automation utility for running builds on various Linux flavored platforms."

More GNU Make pros

Cons

"The solution could improve in managing role-based access. This would be helpful."

"The time that it takes in terms of integration. Cloud integration is comparatively easy, but when it comes to two-link based integrations - like trying to integrate it with any monitoring tools, or maybe some other ticketing tools - it takes longer. That is because most of the out-of-the-box integration of the APIs needs some revisiting."

"Other things would be the need to use Cinc if you want to use the open-source version because Progress Software's policy on copyright is confusing for new users and it puts a barrier in the way to adoption because many small, medium enterprises, startups, and non-profits who might want to use Chef would find the whole Cinc versus Chef situation confusing and the fact that there is not an easy path to install Chef and then go to a paid version without having to change from Cinc to Chef or Chef to Cinc."

"I would like them to add database specific items, configuration items, and migration tools. Not necessarily on the builder side or the actual setup of the system, but more of a migration package for your different database sets, such as MongoDB, your extenders, etc. I want to see how that would function with a transition out to AWS for Aurora services and any of the RDBMS packages."

"However, if you are on-premise, it may not be the best solution."

"I would rate this solution a nine because our use case and whatever we need is there. Ten out of ten is perfect. We have to go to IOD and stuff so they should consider things like this to make it a ten."

"Chef could get better by being more widely available, adapting to different needs, and providing better documentation."

"The agent on the server sometimes acts finicky."

More Chef cons

"GNU Make does not provide traditional customer support."

"Make’s reliability is very poor and is not suitable for larger or incremental builds."

"Poor reliability for larger or incremental builds."

"Vanilla GNU Make does not support any kind of colored output."

"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."

"GNU make is a bad candidate for builds that require incremental builds often, as it does not support this feature."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are able to save in development time, deployment time, and it makes it easier to manage the environments."

"The price is always a problem. It is high. There is room for improvement. I do like purchasing on the AWS Marketplace, but I would like the ability to negotiate and have some flexibility in the pricing on it."

"Chef is priced based on the number of nodes."

"Purchasing the solution from AWS Marketplace was a good experience. AWS's pricing is pretty in line with the product's regular pricing. Though instance-wise, AWS is not the cheapest in the market."

"I wasn't involved in the purchasing, but I am pretty sure that we are happy with the current pricing and licensing since it never comes up."

"When we're rolling out a new server, we're not using the AWS Marketplace AMI, we're using our own AMI, but we are paying them a licensing fee."

"Pricing for Chef is high."

"We are using the free, open source version of the software, which we are happy with at this time."

More Chef pricing and cost advice

"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

921,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Outsourcing Company

13%

Comms Service Provider

12%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	9
Large Enterprise	20

No data available

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Chef?

The licensing cost is zero for Chef if you are using the free version. They have developed other versions, such as SaaS-based and self-managed. For the SaaS-based version, it is $59 per node per ye...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Chef?

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Chef?

We used Chef, the automation tool, as an Infrastructure as Code tool for configuration deployment, such as deploying patches on numerous servers, first on the development box, then on QA, and then ...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform vs Chef

Compared 9% of the time

Jenkins vs Chef

Compared 7% of the time

AWS CloudFormation vs Chef

Compared 6% of the time

GitHub Actions vs Chef

Compared 5% of the time

Microsoft Azure DevOps vs Chef

Compared 5% of the time

More Chef Competitors

Jenkins vs GNU Make

Compared 17% of the time

TeamCity vs GNU Make

Compared 14% of the time

Harness vs GNU Make

Compared 7% of the time

LaunchDarkly vs GNU Make

Compared 6% of the time

Tekton vs GNU Make

Compared 4% of the time

More GNU Make Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Chef

November 2026

Download Chef product report

Buyer's Guide

Build Automation

October 2026

Download GNU Make product report

Overview

Chef is a powerful automation tool designed for efficient infrastructure management across varied environments. With its environment-as-code model, Chef provides predictability and reliability in deployments, enhancing security compliance and reducing manual intervention.

Chef focuses on automating deployments and configurations, ensuring server consistency, managing scalable environments, and orchestrating service deployments. Its versatile recipe-writing and Ruby-based flexibility cater to large-scale operational needs. Chef’s integration with services like AWS and Azure enhances its versatility, while its idempotent deployments assure reliability. Despite its prowess, Chef requires improvements in feature offerings, especially regarding container orchestration and cloud technologies.

What are Chef's Key Features?

Automation: Streamlines infrastructure management across diverse environments.
Environment-as-Code: Offers predictability and efficiency in management.
Idempotency: Ensures reliable deployments by maintaining the same outcome no matter how often applied.
Cloud Integration: Seamlessly integrates with AWS and Azure.
Security Compliance: Enhances security measures across infrastructures.
Ruby-Based Flexibility: Provides versatile recipe-writing and flexible configurations.
Scalability: Suitable for large-scale operational needs.

What Benefits Should Users Consider?

Consistency: Automated deployments reduce errors and manual efforts.
Efficiency: Decrease in manual intervention enhances team productivity.
Reliability: Idempotent deployments ensure consistent outcomes.
Scalability: Supports expanding infrastructures effectively.
Security: Maintains compliance with enhanced security features.

Chef is implemented across industries to automate application deployments, manage CI/CD pipelines, provision infrastructure, and maintain compliance. Its recipes and cookbooks streamline workflows in application deployment, system updates, and orchestration of services, reducing errors and manual intervention in a variety of sectors.

Progress Software

GNU Make is an automation tool designed to manage the build process of software projects. It determines the parts of a program that need to be recompiled and issues the necessary commands to rebuild only those files, saving time and computation resources.

The power of GNU Make lies in its ability to handle complex build dependencies with ease. It uses makefiles to define the relationships between source files and the rules for compiling them. This allows developers to define precise build instructions that increase efficiency and reduce errors. GNU Make is compatible with various platforms, making it a versatile choice for developers working in diverse environments. Its ability to parallelize builds on multi-core systems further enhances its efficiency, ensuring faster build times and improved project workflows.

What are the most important features of GNU Make?

Automatic Dependency Tracking: Automatically detects and handles changes in files.
Parallel Execution: Utilizes multiple cores, speeding up the build process.
Platform Independence: Functions across different operating systems.
Flexible Makefile Syntax: Allows customization and advanced build rules.
Incremental Builds: Only updates changed parts, saving time and resources.

What benefits or ROI should users look for in reviews?

Efficiency: Reduces development time with smart file recompilation.
Cost Savings: Minimizes resource usage, cutting down operational costs.
Scalability: Adapts to projects of varying complexity seamlessly.
Reliability: Provides consistent build outputs with minimal errors.

In software development, GNU Make is particularly valuable in industries such as embedded systems, enterprise solutions, and open-source projects. Its ability to manage dependencies and handle complex builds makes it ideal for maintaining large codebases where precise and efficient builds are crucial.

GNU

Sample Customers

Facebook, Standard Bank, GE Capital, Nordstrom, Optum, Barclays, IGN, General Motors, Scholastic, Riot Games, NCR, Gap

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Chef vs. GNU Make

November 2026

Free Report: Chef vs. GNU Make

Find out what your peers are saying about Chef vs. GNU Make and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

921,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Chef 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.