GNU Make VS JFrog
As of 30 October 2026, JFrog is named by 116 companies and GNU Make by 116; GNU Make skews to companies under 200 people (47% vs 26%), JFrog to companies over 1,000 (49% vs 28%).
As of 30 October 2026 · refreshed daily · counts move as websites, DNS and career sites are re-read.
The website-and-DNS footprint is not comparable between a marketing suite and a CRM: GNU Make's script and mail records show on hundreds of thousands of small sites, JFrog rarely leaves a trace outside its own apps. Compare on the job-posting numbers; use the footprint for reach.
- GNU Make: 2–200 employees
- 47%
- JFrog: 2–200 employees
- 26%
- GNU Make: 1,000+ employees
- 28%
- JFrog: 1,000+ employees
- 49%
- Postings per company, 90 days
- 3.3 · 4.8
- Website or DNS footprint
- 0 · 0
Who chooses which
Share of each tool's companies in every segment. "Leans" marks a gap of more than two points.
| Segment | GNU Make | share | JFrog | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-employed | 1 | 1% | 1 | 1% | even |
| 2-10 employees | 10 | 9% | 4 | 3% | GNU Make |
| 11-50 employees | 26 | 22% | 11 | 9% | GNU Make |
| 51-200 employees | 18 | 16% | 15 | 13% | GNU Make |
| 201-500 employees | 20 | 17% | 16 | 14% | GNU Make |
| 501-1000 employees | 8 | 7% | 12 | 10% | JFrog |
| 1001-5000 employees | 17 | 15% | 25 | 22% | JFrog |
| 5001-10000 employees | 5 | 4% | 4 | 3% | even |
| 10,001+ employees | 11 | 9% | 28 | 24% | JFrog |
| Segment | GNU Make | share | JFrog | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology & software | 43 | 37% | 49 | 42% | JFrog |
| Manufacturing & industry | 40 | 34% | 19 | 16% | GNU Make |
| Business & finance services | 12 | 10% | 32 | 28% | JFrog |
| Automotive | 5 | 4% | 1 | 1% | GNU Make |
| Media & content | 4 | 3% | 1 | 1% | GNU Make |
| Public, community & associations | 3 | 3% | 1 | 1% | even |
| Utilities & infrastructure | 3 | 3% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Hospitality & travel | 2 | 2% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Transport, logistics & rental | 2 | 2% | 1 | 1% | even |
| Commerce & trade | 1 | 1% | 2 | 2% | even |
| Property & construction | 1 | 1% | 1 | 1% | even |
| Health care | – | – | 4 | 3% | outside top 12 |
| Consumer services & leisure | – | – | 2 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | GNU Make | share | JFrog | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 72 | 62% | 74 | 64% | even |
| United Kingdom | 8 | 7% | 9 | 8% | even |
| India | 6 | 5% | 4 | 3% | even |
| Germany | 5 | 4% | 6 | 5% | even |
| France | 4 | 3% | 4 | 3% | even |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Romania | 2 | 2% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Singapore | 2 | 2% | 3 | 3% | even |
| Austria | 1 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Australia | 1 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Bulgaria | 1 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Canada | – | – | 4 | 3% | outside top 12 |
| Switzerland | – | – | 4 | 3% | outside top 12 |
| Sweden | – | – | 2 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Colombia | – | – | 1 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Lithuania | – | – | 1 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Portugal | – | – | 1 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | GNU Make | share | JFrog | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Software engineering | 251 | 45% | 345 | 53% | JFrog |
| Engineering (non-software) | 224 | 40% | 7 | 1% | GNU Make |
| Customer service & success | 4 | 1% | 20 | 3% | JFrog |
| IT operations & business systems | 4 | 1% | 96 | 15% | JFrog |
| Data & AI | 2 | 0% | 27 | 4% | JFrog |
| Quality, safety & environment | 2 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Sales | 2 | 0% | 34 | 5% | JFrog |
| Administration & office | 1 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Logistics warehouse and transport | 1 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Product, program & project management | – | – | 22 | 3% | outside top 12 |
| Marketing & communications | – | – | 5 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Finance & accounting | – | – | 3 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| Human resources | – | – | 3 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| Business development & strategy | – | – | 2 | 0% | outside top 12 |
| General management & consulting | – | – | 2 | 0% | outside top 12 |
The companies behind each column
Companies using GNU Make →
Companies using JFrog →
build packaging ranked →
Quote the sentence with the date and the link. The numbers change daily; the link always shows the current ones.
JFrog is named by 116 companies in job postings and GNU Make by 116; 0 name both. (Breaknorm, 30 October 2026, https://breaknorm.co/compare/gnu-make-vs-jfrog)
Read from the source, not self-reported
Every number on this page can be traced to a page we crawled or a posting we read. Full methodology →
- Job postingsRead hourly from career sites. A tool counts when the employer's own text names it as the team's system; both tools can count for one company.
- Website and DNSScripts and embeds on the company's pages, plus SPF, DKIM, MX and CNAME records of its domain that point at the vendor.
- SegmentsCountry, size and industry from the company profile built from its website.
- Not a reviewNo ratings, prices or feature claims. For those, read the vendors.
GNU Make vs JFrog: questions
Which is more used, GNU Make or JFrog?
By companies naming it in their own job postings, GNU Make (116) over JFrog (116). By website-and-DNS footprint, JFrog (0 vs 0), because its scripts and mail records sit on many small company sites.
Who chooses GNU Make?
47% of GNU Make companies have 2 to 200 employees, against 26% for JFrog. 28% of GNU Make companies have over 1,000 employees, against 49% for JFrog.
Do companies run both?
0 companies name both in their postings, usually GNU Make in marketing and JFrog in sales, or during a migration.
Where do these numbers come from?
From the employer's own text in job postings read hourly from career sites, and from scripts found on company websites in our crawl. No vendor data, no surveys.
Get either list your way
The same data as a search, over MCP and the API, as bulk files, or pushed to you as it changes.
Every company on either tool,
with the person who owns it
Filter on GNU Make or JFrog. Start free, no card.