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

GNU Make vs TeamCity 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
17th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
TeamCity
Ranking in Build Automation
10th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of GNU Make is 1.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TeamCity is 5.2%, down from 7.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Build Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
TeamCity5.2%
GNU Make1.9%
Other92.9%
Build Automation
 

Featured Reviews

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…
RG
IT Professional at NatWest Group
Versatile agent support boosts builds but UI and setup costs need refinement
TeamCity's user interface could be improved; specifically, the tree structure on the homepage is not clear, making it difficult to search for projects. Moreover, there are some limitations related to the version we were using. For instance, there were issues with agent specifications for particular build jobs and a timeout issue where jobs running longer than three hours would fail automatically.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Make tool, originally made for the GNU operating system, helps in the generation of executable from the main program source files."
"GNU make is a build automation utility for running builds on various Linux flavored 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."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"I think this product has all you need."
"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."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"There is much online documentation for TeamCity, with certain learning materials such as videos."
"Do it! Very easy to use and very stable."
"The flexibility of TeamCity allows it to fit in workflows that I have yet to imagine."
"TeamCity allows us to have self-sufficient development teams that can create their own builds and deployments."
"The solution has been fantastic for our organization due to the fact that we do not need a designer having to build the product and we don't need to figure out how to deploy it either, creating improved efficiencies which have saved us time and expense."
"TeamCity is more structured and user-friendly than other vendors."
"It was simple and easy to use, with great features which are always customizable."
"It is very easy to use, and its speed is impressive, allowing the code to be ready for production in seconds."
 

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."
"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."
"Vanilla GNU Make does not support any kind of colored output."
"GNU Make does not provide traditional customer support."
"Poor reliability for larger or incremental builds."
"GNU make is a bad candidate for builds that require incremental builds often, as it does not support this feature."
"It will benefit this solution if they keep up to date with other CI/CD systems out there."
"We would like to see better integration with other version controls, since we encountered difficulty when this was first attempted."
"The upgrade process could be smoother. Upgrading major versions can often cause some pain."
"There have been times when making copies of a project has caused major stability issues, especially when you have nested project structure based off of different build configuration templates."
"More build runners and more options are needed, although I have no worries they keep improving."
"Deployment functions need work."
"This product lacks real reporting for all the information it captures; we should be able to create reports or dashboards for management."
"The UI for this solution could be improved. New users don't find it easy to navigate; they need some level of training to understand the ins and the outs."
 

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 licensing is on an annual basis."
"Start with the free tier for a few build configs and see how it works for you, then according to your scale find the enterprise license which fits you the most."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Build Automation solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
20%
Computer Software Company
11%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
 

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for TeamCity?
Compared to new technologies, TeamCity is more expensive and is an older tool compared to tools like GitLab.
What needs improvement with TeamCity?
TeamCity's user interface could be improved; specifically, the tree structure on the homepage is not clear, making it difficult to search for projects. Moreover, there are some limitations related ...
What is your primary use case for TeamCity?
We use TeamCity for build configuration and pipeline creation, as well as for automation purposes. We provide working pipelines for different teams internally.
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Toyota, Xerox, Apple, MIT, Volkswagen, HP, Twitter, Expedia
Find out what your peers are saying about GNU Make vs. TeamCity and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.