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

GNU Make vs Tekton 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
Tekton
Ranking in Build Automation
2nd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 Tekton is 12.0%, up from 10.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
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…
AjayKrishna - PeerSpot reviewer
If you're dealing with many applications and need a reliable, scalable, and efficient system, I'd recommend this solution
Tekton's most important feature is its cloud-native nature. Unlike Jenkins, which may not scale as efficiently, Tekton's CI pipeline can automatically scale up to handle increased workload demands without needing manual adjustments. Another important aspect is the level of customization offered by Tekton. Each task in the CI pipeline can be customized independently, allowing developers to write code in various languages like shell scripting, Java, or Python and incorporate them into the pipeline as needed. This level of abstraction and customization greatly benefits developers in creating efficient CI pipelines. Also, it can be challenging to understand the logs and troubleshoot issues without clear guidance. It's not always easy to reach technical support and get immediate answers. In my opinion, improvement in this area would be beneficial.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"The initial setup of GNU Make is 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."
"Tekton is a cloud-native solution. It offers optimal resource consumption, allowing tasks to be run more efficiently and at a lower cost."
"Tekton has a user interface that facilitates time savings, making it more user-friendly than Jenkins."
"Tekton allows you to categorize tasks according to your needs and minimizes the amount of code needed."
"Tekton is serverless and runs on OpenShift, and we leverage Tekton to take full advantage of the Kubernetes features such as running and scaling the solution in PaaS."
"I would say the customization ability that Tekton provides is good."
"The installation process is seamless, requiring fewer resources compared to Jenkins."
"Tekton provides a feature where you can schedule the job."
"You can isolate most Tekton assets in the Kubernetes namespace for your feature branch. This allows you to freely change Tekton assets and objects to adapt to your feature branch and requirements."
 

Cons

"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."
"GNU Make does not provide traditional customer support."
"The product's scalability can be challenging when multiple users access it simultaneously."
"There might be occasional issues with storage or cluster-level logging, which can affect production."
"Configuring Tekton requires a deep understanding of Kubernetes, which can be difficult for developers."
"I'm a bit worried about scaling Tekton from the point of view of big CI/CD processes."
"Initially, working with YAML configuration can be challenging using the solution."
"The tool should improve in terms of output flexibility. It runs on a specific Kubernetes machine, and the persistent memory storage is on a single partition. Improving this aspect could make analyzing logs and toolchain outputs from external tools easier."
"If you are a beginner, then accessing the flexibility part can be overwhelming. We think the learning curve of the tool is steep, especially for those who are not already familiar with Kubernetes."
"For infrastructure deployment, integration is somewhat complex, especially when using Terraform with Tekton. It would be beneficial if this process were simplified."
 

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."
"The tool is open-source and free to use."
"Tekton is an open-source tool."
"It is entirely open source and free of charge."
"The product is free of cost."
"The solution is open-source."
"The product is free and open-source."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
24%
Manufacturing Company
12%
Computer Software Company
12%
Government
8%
 

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.
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...
How does Tekton compare with Jenkins?
When you are evaluating tools for automating your own GitOps-based CI/CD workflow, it is important to keep your requirements and use cases in mind. Tekton deployment is complex and it is not very e...
What do you like most about Tekton?
Its seamless integration with Kubernetes, being built on top of it and utilizing Custom Resource Definitions, ensures a smooth experience within Kubernetes environments exclusively.
What needs improvement with Tekton?
Regarding areas for improvement in Tekton, I have not encountered significant issues. It works well for our use case. However, incorporating AI could be a potential enhancement in the future.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
The Home Depot, PayPal, Target, HSBC, McKesson, Oncology Venture
Find out what your peers are saying about GNU Make vs. Tekton and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.