Chef vs GNU Make comparison

Progress Software and GNU are both solutions in the Build Automation category. Progress Software is ranked #13 with an average rating of 8.2, while GNU is ranked #17 with an average rating of 9.0. Progress Software holds a 2.1% mindshare in BA, compared to GNU’s 1.9% mindshare. Additionally, 96% of Progress Software users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 83% of GNU users who would recommend it.

Chef

Read 24 Chef reviews

3,390 Views
949 Comparison Views

96% willing to recommend

GNU Make

Read 6 GNU Make reviews

915 Views
869 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: April 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Chef vs. GNU Make

April 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 894,738 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

13th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Release Automation (6th), Configuration Management (11th)

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 May 2026, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of Chef is 2.1%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of GNU Make is 1.9%, up from 0.7% 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	1.9%
Other	96.0%

Build Automation

Featured Reviews

Walter Ochieng Odhiambo

Software Engineer and Tester at Safaricom

Automation has transformed daily infrastructure work and now frees teams to focus on new challenges

One thing that Chef needs to improve on is making it available in as many languages as possible. There should be a focus on how to make it understandable, not just to infrastructure people, but also to those working in monitoring. How can we ensure that it is part of their daily input? That is something that still has a small missing link. We are almost there, but it can help us achieve outcomes in the future in terms of objectives, not just workflows and visibility. How can we make real-time interactive dashboards more available? Look at what kind of tools can be integrated with them, not just working with the ones like Chef Kitchen and Habitat, but trying to make it even more flexible than what we have right now. On support, I think there should be more focus on how we can achieve AI automations in answering questions for beginners and addressing deep concerns without general manual management.

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

"The most valuable feature is automation."

"If I have to provision/orchestrate between multiple cloud platforms, I can use Chef as a one-stop solution, to broker between those cloud platforms and orchestrate around them, rather than going directly into each of the cloud-vendors' consoles."

"Chef benefited my organization by definitely reducing time because we were provisioning tens of thousands of servers."

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

"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 product is useful for automating processes."

"The most valuable feature is the language that it uses: Ruby."

"If you're handy enough with DSL and you can present your own front-facing interface to your developers, then you can actually have a lot more granular control with Chef in operations over what developers can perform and what they can't."

More Chef pros

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

"GNU Make is such an essential tool that it is almost impossible to imagine working without it."

"The initial setup of GNU Make is straightforward."

"I think this product has all you need."

More GNU Make pros

Cons

"I would rate this solution a nine because our use case and whatever we need is there. Ten out of ten is perfect."

"The agent on the server sometimes acts finicky."

"There is a slight barrier to entry if you are used to using Ansible, since it is Ruby-based."

"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."

"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."

"It is an old technology."

"I would also like to see more analytics and reporting features. Currently, the analytics and reporting features are limited. I'll have to start building my own custom solution with Power BI or Tableau or something like that. If it came with built-in analytics and reporting features that would be great."

"They could provide more features, so the recipes could be developed in a simpler and faster way. There is still a lot of room for improvement, providing better functionalities when creating recipes."

More Chef cons

"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."

"Poor reliability for larger or incremental builds."

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

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

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"Pricing for Chef is high."

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

"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."

"The price per node is a little weird. It doesn't scale along with your organization. If you're truly utilizing Chef to its fullest, then the number of nodes which are being utilized in any particular day might scale or change based on your Auto Scaling groups. How do you keep track of that or audit it? Then, how do you appropriately license it? It's difficult."

"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."

"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."

More Chef pricing and cost advice

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

"GNU Make is free and open source software."

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

894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Comms Service Provider

11%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Computer Software Company

Healthcare Company

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	7
Large Enterprise	19

No data available

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Chef?

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that we sidestepped it by using Cinc because none of the functionality that is exclusive to the paid version was actually in use in the orga...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Chef?

I would add that Ruby is a domain-specific language in the Chef dialect, which is a learning curve, but so is Terraform and so is Ansible. The only feedback would be if they could come up with an i...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Chef?

My main use case for Chef is configuration and deployments. We receive blank servers and use Chef to build predefined application or appliance servers. A quick specific example of how I use Chef to...

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

Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform vs Chef

Compared 8% of the time

AWS CloudFormation vs Chef

Compared 6% of the time

Jenkins vs Chef

Compared 6% of the time

BigFix vs Chef

Compared 6% of the time

Red Hat Satellite vs Chef

Compared 5% of the time

More Chef Competitors

Jenkins vs GNU Make

Compared 14% of the time

TeamCity vs GNU Make

Compared 12% of the time

Buildkite vs GNU Make

Compared 7% of the time

Tekton vs GNU Make

Compared 7% of the time

Travis CI vs GNU Make

Compared 4% of the time

More GNU Make Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Chef

May 2026

Download Chef product report

Buyer's Guide

Build Automation

April 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

April 2026

Free Report: Chef vs. GNU Make

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

894,738 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.