No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CircleCI vs GNU Make comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 15, 2026

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

CircleCI
Ranking in Build Automation
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
AI Software Development (22nd)
GNU Make
Ranking in Build Automation
17th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of CircleCI is 4.0%, up from 3.2% 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
ProductMindshare (%)
CircleCI4.0%
GNU Make1.9%
Other94.1%
Build Automation
 

Featured Reviews

KajalSharma - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Development Engineering Testing at HighLevel
Continuous pipelines have accelerated releases and improve early defect detection for our teams
One limitation I see in CircleCI is the troubleshooting of complex pipeline failures, which sometimes takes time, especially when multiple jobs or containers are involved. More intelligent root cause insights would be helpful. The configuration experience often depends on YAML setup, which feels more technical for new users not from the DevOps team. A more guided visual pipeline builder would ease onboarding. I also feel that deeper flaky test analytics would add value because quickly identifying unstable tests versus actual product defects is important for QA teams. Integrations are generally strong, but sometimes teams need more plug-and-play connectors for niche tools or simpler setup steps for third-party testing platforms. Making those integrations more seamless would save onboarding time. The technical content in documentation is useful, but in some advanced scenarios, it can take time to find exact solutions. Including troubleshooting guides or real-world examples would be helpful. Regarding support, faster resolution for urgent pipeline blockers is always valuable, especially when builds impact release timelines.
JC
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…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Running parallel jobs where dev gets automatically updated every time has helped our team significantly."
"The automation workflow in CircleCI related to third-party applications is very good and allows standardization of applications."
"For us, this translates to high degree of productivity, ability to detect exactly which build failed and why, and being able to push multiple builds to our production environment at a very fast rate."
"CircleCI has positively impacted my organization with faster time to market, improved software quality, cost efficiency, and increased developer productivity."
"The ability to automate the build process in a seamless way and run workflows effortlessly. It supports parallel builds so it can scale well. Also, it covers the basics of any build and integration tool, including email notifications (especially when tests are fixed), project insights, etc."
"CircleCI has positively impacted my organization in terms of speed, quality, and team efficiency."
"CircleCI has positively impacted the organization, as it has been used for many years and serves as the main source for application deployment."
"There has been a significant return on investment with CircleCI, as it has decreased the number of developers involved in deployment from two to three, which reduces costs and saves time by 100x due to the elimination of manual intervention."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"I think this product has all you need."
"The initial setup of GNU Make is straightforward."
"Make tool, originally made for the GNU operating system, helps in the generation of executable from the main program source files."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"The pricing could be improved as it is pretty complex."
"Integration with Microsoft Azure is one area for improvement. Azure is growing in its user base, and supports various cloud infrastructure components such as Service Fabric, App Service, etc."
"For half year we have used circleCI, then we go back to jenkins."
"I find that the plans for CircleCI become very expensive for large teams and pipelines, making it somewhat unaffordable for startup companies."
"Sometimes the documentation is too in-depth."
"A return on investment with CircleCI has not been observed, and no relevant metrics such as time saved or fewer employees needed can be shared."
"Integration with Microsoft Azure is one area for improvement. Azure is growing in its user base, and supports various cloud infrastructure components such as Service Fabric, App Service, etc. Some of Azure’s deployment models (like Kudu) require a steep learning curve, but if CircleCI would come up with such features (deployment to App Service) out of the box, it would be amazing."
"I rated CircleCI six out of ten because I think they need more transparency in pricing, as there are instances of unclear network data transfer and storage costs related to caching and workspaces."
"Poor reliability for larger or incremental builds."
"Make’s reliability is very poor and is not suitable for larger or incremental builds."
"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 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."
"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 is a bad candidate for builds that require incremental builds often, as it does not support this feature."
"GNU Make does not provide traditional customer support."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of CircleCI could be less expensive."
"There is no price for this product. No licensing. It’s open-source."
"GNU Make is free and open source software."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise9
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CircleCI?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that we are currently using the trial version and are considering purchasing another level of CircleCI, focusing on which tier would be best...
What needs improvement with CircleCI?
As each time code is deployed onto the main branch, the build automatically triggers, saving us time. We have reduced our manual efforts significantly after the initial setup. We used to spend arou...
What advice do you have for others considering CircleCI?
CircleCI is an amazing tool. It is fast, modern, and integrates with most systems, whether repositories or notification systems. CircleCI is a very powerful tool and you should at least try it once...
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.
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.
What is your primary use case for GNU Make?
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 task...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Shopify, Zenefits, Concur Technologies, CyberAgent
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about CircleCI vs. GNU Make and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.