We performed a comparison between GitLab 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."It is scalable."
"The most valuable features of GitLab are ease of use and highly intuitive UI and performance."
"The most valuable features of Gitlab are integration with CIE and the ability to rapidly deploy solutions, projects, and applications. It is very easy to use, and there are no complaints."
"GitLab is very useful for pipelines, continuous integration, and continuous deployment. It is also stable."
"The best thing is that as the developers work on separate tasks, all of the code goes there and the other team members don't have to wait on each other to finish."
"We use the Git repository and tagging feature. We are a product-based company and use this solution to move to a forward or backward tag."
"GitLab is kind of an image of GitHub, so it gives us the flexibility to monitor our changes in the repos."
"I like that it's easy to deploy our services over GitLab. The customer support is also good with a really active community. You have a lot of support that you can get online with your stack. That is probably one of the benefits of using GitLab. It's also really fast."
"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."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"GitLab can improve by integrating with more tools, such as servers with Docker."
"The tool should include a feature that helps to edit the code directly."
"Reporting could be improved."
"I would like more Agile features in the Premium version. The Premium version should have all Agile features that exist in the Ultimate version. IBM AOM has a complete Agile implementation, but in GitLab, you only have these features if you buy the Ultimate version. It would be good if we can use these in the Premium version."
"GitLab could consider introducing a code-scanning tool. Purchasing such tools from external markets can incur charges, which might not be favorable. Integrating these features into GitLab would streamline the pipeline and make it more convenient for users."
"I rate the support from GitLab a four out of five."
"Their RBAC is role-based access, which is fine but not very good."
"Expand features to match other tools such as a static code analysis tool so third-party integrations are not required."
"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
GitLab is ranked 1st in Build Automation with 70 reviews while GNU Make is ranked 26th in Build Automation. GitLab is rated 8.6, while GNU Make is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of GitLab writes "Powerful, mature, and easy to set up and manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GNU Make writes "Full-featured syntax allows building strategies as simple or as complex as needed". GitLab is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, Bamboo, AWS CodePipeline, SonarQube 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.
