Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

GNU Make vs LaunchDarkly comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 5, 2025

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
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
LaunchDarkly
Ranking in Build Automation
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of GNU Make is 1.0%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of LaunchDarkly is 0.9%, up from 0.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Build Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
LaunchDarkly0.9%
GNU Make1.0%
Other98.1%
Build Automation
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2561757 - PeerSpot reviewer
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…
Ramya Nallamsetty - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables us to target users and control what needs to be visible on their screens but it sometimes breaks down
We use LaunchDarkly for managing feature flags. It helps manage the keys to control what users view on our screens By managing the feature flags, we can target users and control what needs to be visible on their screens. I like that it offers the ability to control the flags. We need experience…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Setup is extremely 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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"The setup is easy."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"It has really helped during the series of product lines and faster deployment and faster development."
"The ability to turn off a flag is crucial when a task is not complete, especially if there is an error in a commit."
"I appreciate that we can release any feature in production and maintain control over it."
"From the development side, it allows us to manage multiple things."
"I like that it offers the ability to control the flags."
 

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."
"GNU Make does not provide traditional customer support."
"Fetching information about multiple flags in a single action would be beneficial."
"We need experience to use it, and the initial setup can be difficult. Also, sometimes it has breakdowns."
"Right now, no improvements are needed."
"I have used LaunchDarkly for around two and a half years and I haven't faced any issues with it."
"The feature where one feature flag is dependent on another could be explored more for our usage."
"When the system has an excessive number of feature flags, managing them can become cumbersome."
"I strongly believe they need to develop a strategy for handling situations where LaunchDarkly goes down."
 

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."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise4
 

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.
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...
What needs improvement with LaunchDarkly?
We need experience to use it, and the initial setup can be difficult. Also, sometimes it has breakdowns. I would rate LaunchDarkly a seven out of ten.
What is your primary use case for LaunchDarkly?
We use LaunchDarkly for managing feature flags. It helps manage the keys to control what users view on our screens.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about GNU Make vs. LaunchDarkly and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.