Make
Visual automation platform to build complex workflows and AI agents across 3,000+ apps
Make is the right call when your automation needs go beyond simple triggers and you're comfortable with a steeper learning curve. Its visual builder and AI agent capabilities give you far more control than Zapier, but that power comes with complexity. Pick it for complex multi-step workflows; skip it if you want a plug-and-play tool.
Verified 14h ago · liveness 87/100 · cite: rightaichoice.com/tools/make
- Marketing teams automating lead generation and CRM updates
- Operations teams integrating multiple SaaS tools into workflows
- IT teams automating monitoring and incident response with AI
- Developers building complex integrations without coding
- Users needing simple one-step Zapier-like integrations (overkill)
- Beginners who prefer minimal configuration
- Teams with very high volume automation needs (pricing scales quickly)
We scan live Reddit threads, YouTube comments, X posts, G2 reviews and other communities — and hand you an honest verdict in under a minute.
- Honest verdict, not marketing
- Real pros & cons from real users
- Attributed quotes with receipts
3 free scans · no card needed
Skip Make if you need only simple one-step automations like Zapier's basic zaps, or if you're a non-technical user who prefers minimal configuration and doesn't have time to learn a visual logic builder.
Going over your monthly operations limit on any paid plan triggers overage charges, which can add up quickly with high-volume workflows.
Make's freemium model starts at $0/mo and scales with your needs. The Core plan at $9/mo offers 10,000 operations, which is competitive with Zapier's similar tier but gives you more advanced logic. For teams needing heavy automation, Make's pricing grows with usage, so it's best for growing teams rather than small businesses with flat-rate needs.
In short
Make — Visual automation platform to build complex workflows and AI agents across 3,000+ apps. Best for Marketing teams automating lead generation and CRM updates, Operations teams integrating multiple SaaS tools into workflows, IT teams automating monitoring and incident response with AI. Free to start; paid plans from $9/mo.
Viability Score
How well maintained and how widely used is Make? Built from what the vendor actually publishes (docs, changelog, tutorials, integrations, pricing), whether the site is live, and how much real users discuss it. How we calculate this
Last calculated: August 2026
How we score →Key Features
- Visual scenario builder with drag-and-drop
- Connect 3,000+ apps with pre-built connectors
- Routers, filters, and conditional logic
- Data transformation with aggregators and iterators
- Sub-scenarios for modular workflow design
- Webhook triggers for custom events
- Error handling with rollback mechanisms
- Real-time execution logs and monitoring
- Team collaboration with shared workspaces
- Scheduling and recurrence triggers
- Data storage with data stores
- API integration for custom actions
- Pre-built automation templates
- Make AI Agents with transparent, real-time adaptation
- Make MCP Server to securely link AI to business actions
About Make
Make (formerly Integromat) is a visual automation platform that lets you connect 3,000+ apps to design, build, and manage sophisticated workflows and AI agents. Instead of chaining simplistic triggers, you get a drag-and-drop scenario builder where you can lay out routers, filters, aggregators, and iterators to transform data exactly how you need it. Marketing, sales, operations, IT, and finance teams use it to automate everything from lead routing to incident response. With over 400,000 organizations on board, it scales from a free tier to enterprise-grade security, including GDPR, SOC 2, and SOC 3 compliance, SSO, and encryption. Make also offers Make AI Agents — transparent, action-taking agents that adapt in real time — plus a Library of Agents and the Make MCP Server to securely link AI to business actions. The platform supports webhooks, scheduling, data stores, and custom API actions, giving you flexibility far beyond typical no-code tools. Compared to Zapier, Make delivers deeper customization and more robust logic, making it the better fit for teams that need enterprise-level workflow orchestration rather than one-click simplicity.
Behind the Verdict
Make has long been the power user's alternative to Zapier, and nothing in the recent news changes that. If your workflows involve multiple branches, data transformation, or conditional logic, Make's scenario builder is where it shines. You get routers, filters, aggregators, and iterators — tools that let you shape data between apps without writing code. That's a big deal for operations teams stitching together CRMs, ERPs, and internal tools. The new AI agent layer extends that logic into autonomous actions, and with the MCP Server you can connect agents to your business systems securely. For teams already invested in Make, this is a natural evolution. Where Make bites is simplicity. If you just need "when X happens, do Y," Zapier is faster to set up and easier to maintain. Make's visual editor demands a mental shift — you're designing flows, not linking triggers. That's fine for technical operators or dedicated automation builders, but it's overkill for a marketing manager who wants a quick integration. The pricing also scales with operations, so heavy users can see costs climb. Still, for enterprises that need compliance plus deep customization, Make's GDPR, SOC 2, and SOC 3 posture carries weight. Compared to Zapier, Make gives you more control and better pricing for high-volume use, but Zapier's ecosystem and simplicity remain unbeatable for small automations. For AI agent workflows, Make is ahead of most no-code platforms, but OpenAI's Presence and similar tools are pushing into that space — Make's advantage is the breadth of its 3,000+ connectors. We'd reach for Make when you need to orchestrate complex, multi-step processes with clear data paths. Pass if you want a one-click integration or if your team lacks the patience for visual logic.
Researching Make? Get your full AI stack in 60 seconds.
Free, no signup — tell us your goal and get tools matched to your budget & existing stack.
Real-world workflow fit
Concrete scenarios for the personas Make actually fits — and what changes day-one when you adopt it.
Automate lead capture from Facebook Lead Ads into HubSpot, then trigger an email sequence and create a task in monday.com.
Outcome: Leads are captured and routed instantly, saving hours of manual data entry and ensuring no lead is missed.
Build a workflow that monitors support tickets in Zendesk, uses ChatGPT to draft responses, and escalates critical issues to Slack.
Outcome: Faster response times and reduced manual workload for support teams, with AI assistance and real-time alerts.
Sync inventory across Shopify and QuickBooks, and update warehouse system when stock levels change.
Outcome: Accurate inventory management and financial records without manual synchronization, preventing stockouts and bookkeeping errors.
Use Cases
- Automate lead capture from Facebook Ads to CRM and email sequence
- Sync inventory across Shopify, QuickBooks, and warehouse system
- Generate AI-powered content drafts and post to WordPress and social media
- Monitor support tickets in Zendesk and auto-reply using ChatGPT
Limitations
- Make is a visual automation platform for building workflows and AI agents across 3,000+ apps.
- Its drag-and-drop builder is user-friendly for simple integrations, but complex workflows with many branches and data transformations can become difficult to manage and debug.
- Heavy reliance on pre-built connectors means custom or niche services may require extra development through the API.
- The platform offers real-time monitoring and error handling, but performance may degrade for high-volume operations.
as of 2026-08-01
Verification history
We have re-verified Make 60 times since . Each pass re-reads the vendor's own pages and re-checks every listed field against that evidence; passes where nothing had changed are marked as such.
- — re-checked, vendor evidence unchanged
- — re-checked, vendor evidence unchanged
- — re-checked, vendor evidence unchanged
- — re-checked, vendor evidence unchanged
- — re-checked, vendor evidence unchanged
- — re-checked, vendor evidence unchanged
Showing the 6 most recent of 60 verification passes.
Free to cite with attribution — this page re-verifies continuously.
12-month cost
Project the real annual outlay, including the implied monthly cost when only an annual tier is published.
Vendor list price only. Add-on usage, seat overages, and contract minimums are surfaced under Hidden costs & gotchas.
Plans compared
For each published Make tier: who it actually fits, and what it adds vs. the previous tier. Cross-reference the cost calculator above for projected annual outlay.
Free
$0/mo
Ideal for
Individuals or hobbyists exploring automation with light usage, up to 1,000 operations per month.
What this tier adds
Entry point with 1,000 operations, 2 active scenarios, and 15-minute execution interval.
Core
$9/mo
Ideal for
Small teams or solo professionals needing more capacity, with 10,000 operations per month and 5 active scenarios.
What this tier adds
10x more operations, more scenarios, faster 5-minute interval, and 30-day history retention.
Pro
$16/mo
Ideal for
Growing teams with moderate automation needs, offering 30,000 operations and 15 active scenarios.
What this tier adds
3x operations, 1-minute execution interval, and 90-day history retention.
Enterprise
Custom
Ideal for
Large organizations requiring custom volume, unlimited scenarios, real-time execution, and advanced security.
What this tier adds
Custom operations, unlimited scenarios, SSO, dedicated support, and compliance features.
Where the pricing makes sense
The company stage and team size where Make's pricing actually pencils out — and where peers do it cheaper.
Make's freemium model starts at $0/mo and scales with your needs. The Core plan at $9/mo offers 10,000 operations, which is competitive with Zapier's similar tier but gives you more advanced logic. For teams needing heavy automation, Make's pricing grows with usage, so it's best for growing teams rather than small businesses with flat-rate needs.
Setup time & first value
How long it actually takes to get something useful out of Make — broken out by persona, not the marketing-page minute.
You can set up your first simple automation within 30 minutes using templates and the visual builder. Complex workflows with multiple branches and data transformations may take a few hours to design and test. The learning curve is moderate, but the drag-and-drop interface and pre-built connectors speed up initial adoption.
Switching to or from Make
How to bring data in from common predecessors and how to get it back out — written for the switcher, not the buyer.
- →From Zapier: Rebuild zaps as Make scenarios using the visual builder; leverage Make's advanced logic to consolidate multiple zaps into one scenario.
- →From Integromat: Since Make is the rebranded Integromat, your existing scenarios and connections carry over seamlessly.
- ↗To Zapier: If you need simpler automations, you can replicate basic scenarios as zaps, but you'll lose data transformation and advanced logic.
- ↗To n8n: For self-hosted automation, you can manually recreate scenarios in n8n, but it requires more technical setup and maintenance.
Integrations
Resources & Guides
Tutorials & Learning
Official links
Tools that pair well with Make
Common stack mates teams adopt alongside Make, with the specific reason each pairing earns its keep.
Featured Head-to-Head Comparisons
Make vs N8n
For business teams wanting a polished, no-code canvas to connect thousands of SaaS apps with advanced visual logic, Make is the safer bet. For engineers and IT/SecOps teams who need self-hosting, code-level flexibility, and deep auditability, n8n wins. If you live in spreadsheets and want to plug-and-play, start with Make; if you're building AI agents and need traceability, go n8n.
Create vs Make
If your goal is to automate cross-app business processes (CRM, email, databases), Make is the clear choice with its 3,000+ connectors and visual logic. If you want to build a functional web or mobile app from a natural language description, Create generates real, editable code and includes essential backend services like auth and a database. Pick Make for workflow orchestration; pick Create for rapid application prototyping.
Activepieces vs Make
Choose Activepieces if AI agents, self-hosting, and cost predictability (flat $5/flow) are critical, especially for teams migrating from Zapier/Make with AI use cases. Pick Make if you need deep data transformations, routers, and a mature visual builder for complex non-AI workflows, and you're comfortable with operation-based pricing.
Make vs Zapier
If you want visual control over complex, multi-step logic and have some technical comfort, Make is the better buy. If you prioritize sheer app count, minimal learning curve, and AI-assisted workflow generation, Zapier wins. Both are freemium, but Zapier's unified task pricing (post-2026) simplifies cost planning for AI-heavy usage.
Integrately vs Make
If you need raw automation power and are comfortable with a steeper learning curve, Choose Make for its visual scenario builder, AI agents, and 3,000+ integrations. If you want to automate yesterday without touching a workflow, and low cost is your priority, Integrately's 1-click pre-built automations and free custom builds are unbeatable for SMBs and non-technical teams. Make scales for enterprise; Integrately scales for speed.
Make vs Workato
For a large enterprise needing to orchestrate AI agents with MCP, integrate complex systems like Workday or NetSuite, and manage master data, Workato is the clear choice despite its hidden pricing. For SMBs or teams on a budget that want a flexible no-code workflow builder with many pre-built connectors, Make offers a freemium model and intuitive visual builder that is far more accessible.
Alternatives to Make
View allFrequently Asked Questions
Categories
Best-of guides
Used Make? Help shape our editorial sentiment research.