GNU Make vs Harness comparison

GNU and Harness are both solutions in the Build Automation category. GNU is ranked #16 with an average rating of 9.0, while Harness is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.7. GNU holds a 0.7% mindshare in BA, compared to Harness’s 7.0% mindshare. Additionally, 83% of GNU users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Harness users who would recommend it.

GNU Make

Read 6 GNU Make reviews

226 Views
152 Comparison Views

83% willing to recommend

Harness

Read 4 Harness reviews

2,131 Views
1,455 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

GNU Make

Harness

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

GNU Make and Harness are competitive tools in the software development space, specializing in build automation and continuous delivery, respectively. Harness often holds the upper hand due to its comprehensive functionalities and advanced automation capabilities, justifying its higher cost for many users.

Features: GNU Make is renowned for its efficient handling of complex build processes, robust automation features, and effective dependency management. Harness provides cutting-edge continuous delivery features, simplifying deployment pipelines and offering seamless integration with various CI/CD tools. This distinction highlights GNU Make in build automation and Harness in deployment automation with advanced capabilities.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: GNU Make benefits from easy installation and a wealth of community-supported resources and documentation. Harness, with its more complex deployment process, provides dedicated customer service, customizing solutions to meet enterprise needs. This in-depth support differentiates Harness from GNU Make's community reliance.

Pricing and ROI: GNU Make, as an open-source tool, incurs no setup cost, making it an attractive option for maximizing returns with minimal investment. Harness requires a significant initial investment due to its premium pricing model. However, its robust features often deliver substantial ROI for businesses seeking sophisticated automation solutions. The contrast lies in GNU Make's cost-effectiveness and Harness's value-driven approach.

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

Buyer's Guide

GNU Make vs. Harness

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 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

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

Harness

Ranking in Build Automation

10th

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (31st), Cloud Cost Management (15th)

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of GNU Make is 0.7%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Harness is 7.0%, up from 4.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Build Automation

Featured Reviews

reviewer2561757

Software 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

Linwei Yuan

Software Engineer at Citi

Streamline microservices deployment with integrated execution pipelines and comprehensive monitoring

Harness integrates all functions like execution pipelines, environment checks, and log monitoring in one place. It is very convenient since we have many microservices, so having one platform for all of them is beneficial. The dashboard allows me to monitor all core services' deployment status in one place, making it easier to find bugs and check logs.

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

"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."

"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."

"Setup is extremely 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."

"Harness integrates all functions like execution pipelines, environment checks, and log monitoring in one place."

"Harness integrates all functions like execution pipelines, environment checks, and log monitoring in one place, making it convenient."

"It's a highly customizable DevOps tool."

"The features of Harness are valuable, supporting rolling deployments, basic deployments, and blue-green deployments with zero downtime."

"Harness starts integrating with organizations, making everything automated without the need for manual interruption."

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 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."

"Even with automation, there's a requirement for manual change requests for approvals."

"When deploying multiple components to multiple environments, like production and BCP, failures sometimes occur. Improvements are needed when deploying one component to one environment."

"When integrating Harness with more than twenty applications in one place, it becomes less stable, causing improvements to be necessary."

"There's also room for improvement in debugging pipeline issues, which can sometimes become complex."

"I prefer the previous less compact UI version of Harness, which showed more details on the screen."

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."

Information not available

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

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Financial Services Firm

34%

Computer Software Company

12%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

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

What do you like most about Harness?

It's a highly customizable DevOps tool.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Harness?

Previously, when deploying a version that had been deployed successfully before, it sometimes failed upon trying again, which seems to be an intermittent issue about stability. I prefer the previou...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Harness?

I used Harness for CICD, and it served as the release platform that our team used for Java applications. We do Java microservices, and we used it to deploy them.

See all answers

Comparisons

Jenkins vs GNU Make

Compared 100% of the time

More GNU Make Competitors

Jenkins vs Harness

Compared 20% of the time

GitHub Actions vs Harness

Compared 18% of the time

TeamCity vs Harness

Compared 14% of the time

Tekton vs Harness

Compared 12% of the time

GitLab vs Harness

Compared 8% of the time

More Harness Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Build Automation

April 2025

Download GNU Make product report

Buyer's Guide

Build Automation

April 2025

Download Harness product report

Also Known As

No data available

Armory

Overview

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

Harness offers a comprehensive toolset for automating deployment processes and enhancing software update efficiency. It's lauded for its CI/CD capabilities, feature flagging, and real-time deployment monitoring. Key features include an intuitive UI, secret management, and robust rollback functionalities, all contributing to improved productivity and reduced errors in DevOps environments.

Harness

Sample Customers

Information Not Available

Linedata, Openbank, Home Depot, Advanced

Buyer's Guide

GNU Make vs. Harness

April 2025

Free Report: GNU Make vs. Harness

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our GNU Make vs. Harness 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.