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 May 2026, in the Build Automation category, the mindshare of GNU Make is 1.9%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of TeamCity is 5.4%, down from 7.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Build Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
TeamCity5.4%
GNU Make1.9%
Other92.7%
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

"GNU make is a build automation utility for running builds on various Linux flavored platforms."
"The initial setup of GNU Make is straightforward."
"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."
"GNU Make is such an essential tool that it is almost impossible to imagine working without 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."
"I have not encountered any scalability issues with GNU Make. It is as scalable as the project's structure is, and then some."
"One of the best things about GNU Make is that, it is available on almost all Linux platforms."
"Setup is extremely straightforward."
"The integration is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is its easy configuration, and it also has multiple plugins that can be used especially for building .net applications."
"Using TeamCity and emailing everyone on fail is one way to emphasize the importance of testing code and showing management why taking the time to test actually does saves time from having to fix bugs on the other end."
"One of the most beneficial features for us is the flexibility it offers in creating deployment steps tailored to different technologies."
"I spend less time scripting to get a build working and more time configuring TeamCity through its web-based front end."
"The templates allow a consistent configuration on how an application is built, and by combining the use of the meta-runner and build templates, the whole organisation understands, and follows, this convention."
"TeamCity's GUI is nice."
"When we discovered TeamCity, it totally speeded up our workflow."
 

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 is a bad candidate for builds that require incremental builds often, as it does not support this feature."
"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."
"Make’s reliability is very poor and is not suitable for larger or incremental builds."
"Poor reliability for larger or incremental builds."
"Vanilla GNU Make does not support any kind of colored output."
"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."
"This product lacks real reporting for all the information it captures; we should be able to create reports or dashboards for management."
"It'd be great to see future built-in support for Octopus Deploy."
"REST API support lacks many features in customization of builds, jobs, and settings."
"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."
"The UI could be more structured, as it is so customisable it is quite easy to get lost around the screens."
"Deployment functions need work."
"It will benefit this solution if they keep up to date with other CI/CD systems out there."
"I would suggest creating simple and advanced configurations. Advanced configurations will give more customizations like Jenkins does."
 

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."
"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.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Marketing Services Firm
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: April 2026.
893,221 professionals have used our research since 2012.