Make
Visual AI automation platform for building workflows and AI agents across 3,000+ apps
Make earns its place when your automations have real logic in them — branches, data reshaping, AI steps — and you're willing to spend an afternoon learning the canvas. The tradeoff is honest: Zapier is faster to set up and n8n is more tinkerer-friendly, but neither gives you this combination of visual orchestration, AI agents, and enterprise compliance at a self-serve price. Budget time for the learning curve; it pays back on the second workflow.
Verified 18h ago · liveness 84/100 · cite: rightaichoice.com/tools/make
- Marketing teams automating lead management, routing, and CRM updates across multiple tools
- Operations teams connecting a fragmented SaaS stack with branching logic
- IT teams automating monitoring, incident response, and ticket workflows
- DevOps engineers who want complex integrations without maintaining infrastructure
- Anyone automating a single trigger-to-action pair — a simpler connector does it faster
- Non-technical users with no appetite for learning visual logic flows and debugging modules
- Teams whose monthly execution volume is high enough that operation costs dominate the budget
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 only need simple trigger-and-action automations between two apps without complex logic, or if you're not willing to invest time in learning its visual scenario builder and debugging multi-branch workflows.
Operations are metered; high-volume automation can exceed your plan's quota and incur extra fees.
Make's pricing is competitive for teams needing moderate automation volumes: free 1k operations, Core $9 for 10k, Pro $16 for 10k + advanced features. Enterprises needing unlimited operations pay custom. Compared to Zapier, Make often offers more operations per dollar at the same tier, and n8n offers self-hosted flat-rate alternatives for high-volume users.
In short
Make — Visual AI automation platform for building workflows and AI agents across 3,000+ apps. Best for Marketing teams automating lead management, routing, and CRM updates across multiple tools, Operations teams connecting a fragmented SaaS stack with branching logic, IT teams automating monitoring, incident response, and ticket workflows. Free to start; paid plans from $9/mo.
What people actually say about Make — is it worth it?
We ran a structured research pass across product reviews, community discussions, and post-purchase forum threads to surface the patterns vendors won't publish themselves. Below: the recurring strengths, the hidden costs people mention most, and the cohort that consistently regrets adopting this tool.
94 mentions across 7 sources (Hacker News, YouTube, Product Hunt, App Store, Stack Overflow, Lemmy, Tech Press) · researched Aug 18, 2026.
Average across the 7 sources that answered — each source counts once, not each post.
- +Powerful drag-and-drop workflow builder with routers, filters, and iterators.
- +Deep customization beyond Zapier, letting users fine-tune data transformations.
- +3,000+ app integrations covering major business tools like Slack and OpenAI.
- +Sub-scenarios and modular design keep complex automations organized.
- +AI agents and MCP server integration position it for future automation.
- −Mobile app crashes repeatedly and lacks core scenario management.
- −Learning curve is steep for non-technical users, despite 'easy' marketing.
- −Support response times can be extremely slow, with tickets sometimes ignored.
- −Name 'Make' is too generic, causing confusion about what it does.
- −Built-in error handling and rollback can be confusing to configure.
- • Overages when exceeding monthly operations without purchasing extra operations packs
- • Enterprise plan requires custom quote; no transparent pricing
- • Some advanced features like data stores may consume extra operations or require higher tiers
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: September 2026
How we score →Key Features
- Drag-and-drop scenario builder for visual workflow design
- 3,000+ pre-built app connectors plus custom API actions
- Routers, filters, aggregators, and iterators for data transformation
- Make AI Agents that take action across connected apps
- Library of ready-made AI agents to deploy and adapt
- Make MCP Server linking AI models to business actions
- Maia by Make: build automations and agents via natural conversation
- Build by prompt, drag-and-drop, or via MCP
- Agentic automation that adapts in real time to business needs
- Make Grid for managing your whole automation landscape visually
- Error handling with rollback
- Real-time execution logs and monitoring
- Sub-scenarios for modular workflow design
- Data stores for persistent workflow state
- Enterprise security: SSO, encryption, GDPR, SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3
About Make
Make is a visual AI automation platform for connecting apps, data sources, and AI models into workflows you can actually see. You build scenarios by dragging and dropping modules onto a canvas, then wire in routers, filters, aggregators, and iterators to shape data as it moves. There's no code required, but code is welcome when you want it — the same platform supports build-by-prompt, drag-and-drop, and MCP-based construction. Over 400,000 organizations across 200+ countries run on it, from solo operators to enterprise IT teams, and it's now part of Celonis following its 2015 founding. The reasoning to pick Make over a simpler connector is control. Agentic automation adapts in real time to business needs, Make AI Agents take action across the 3,000+ app library, and the Make MCP Server links AI models to real business actions securely and visually. A library of ready-made AI agents lets you deploy and adapt rather than start blank, and Make Grid gives you one visual landscape for the whole automation estate so nothing rots unnoticed. Compliance and scale are handled at the platform level: GDPR, SOC 2 Type II, and SOC 3, plus encryption and SSO. Monitoring, error handling, and sub-scenarios for modular design round out the builder. Where it sits: Zapier wins on one-click simplicity, n8n wins on self-hosted tinkering. Make occupies the middle — deeper logic than Zapier, less infrastructure work than n8n — and it's the natural pick when your workflows have branches, transformations, and AI steps that a single trigger-action pair can't express.
Behind the Verdict
The pitch that lands first is breadth: 3,000+ pre-built apps, plus OpenAI, HubSpot, Salesforce, Slack, monday.com, NetSuite, Canva, and the newer AI entrants like Perplexity and DeepSeek. But breadth isn't why teams stay. They stay because the scenario canvas lets them see what a workflow is doing — which module failed, which branch got taken, where the data got mangled. We'd reach for Make when a process spans four or more tools and has conditions in it. Lead routing that checks territory, enriches the record, then pings the right rep in Slack. Incident response that opens a ticket, pages on-call, and writes a timeline back. Those are Make shapes, not simple-trigger shapes. Pass on it if you need a two-step "new form submission → row in sheet" automation. That's a five-minute job in a simpler tool and an hour of learning here. Also think twice if your team has no one comfortable with visual logic flows — the canvas is approachable, but debugging a broken aggregator isn't a non-technical task. Compared with Zapier: Make's routers and iterators handle data transformation Zapier makes you pay more for or work around. Compared with n8n: Make is hosted, has a real support organization, and carries SOC 2 Type II plus SOC 3 — n8n asks you to own more. If compliance paperwork is on your critical path, that gap matters. The AI layer is the freshest part. Make AI Agents aren't a chat bolted onto a workflow builder; they act across the app library, and the MCP Server is how you let an external model reach those same actions without handing it the keys to everything. Maia, the conversational builder, is worth trying if the canvas feels intimidating on day one — build by prompt, then inspect what it produced visually. That inspect step is the whole point of the product. Two
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.
Capture leads from Facebook Lead Ads, enrich with Clearbit, add to HubSpot and Mailchimp, and trigger a Slack notification for the sales team.
Outcome: Leads are automatically processed and routed within minutes of capture, reducing manual entry time by 80%.
Monitor PagerDuty incidents, pull related logs, ask an AI agent to draft a preliminary analysis, and create a Jira ticket with the summary.
Outcome: Incident response time drops because the AI agent provides a first-pass diagnosis, allowing engineers to focus on remediation.
Sync product inventory between Shopify, QuickBooks, and a warehouse management system every 5 minutes, with error alerts if data mismatches.
Outcome: Inventory is always consistent across systems, reducing overselling and manual reconciliation effort.
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
- Build an AI agent that triages IT incidents and opens Jira tickets
- Orchestrate multi-step approval workflows across Slack and email
- Automate data enrichment from webhooks into a Google Sheet
Limitations
- Make's visual 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.
- Real-time monitoring helps, but performance may degrade for high-volume operations.
- The learning curve is real—expect time to master routers, aggregators, and error handling.
as of 2026-08-30
Verification history
We have re-verified Make 88 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-verified summary, description, our verdict, our analysis, pricing model, pricing tiers, features, integrations, who it suits, who should skip it
- — 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 88 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 and hobbyists exploring automation with up to 1,000 operations/month and access to 3,000+ apps.
What this tier adds
Starting tier—free entry point with 1,000 operations, core scenario builder, and community support.
Core
$9/mo
Ideal for
Small teams or freelancers needing 10,000 operations/month, scheduling, and webhooks on a budget.
What this tier adds
Adds 10k operations (10x free), multi-branch scenarios, email support, and data stores.
Pro
$16/mo
Ideal for
Growing teams needing advanced scenario features, custom API actions, and priority support.
What this tier adds
Builds on Core and adds advanced features, custom API actions, priority support, and team collaboration tools.
Enterprise
Custom
Ideal for
Large organizations needing unlimited operations, SSO, compliance (GDPR, SOC 2, SOC 3), and dedicated support.
What this tier adds
Top tier—unlimited operations, advanced security, compliance, dedicated support, and custom SLA.
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 pricing is competitive for teams needing moderate automation volumes: free 1k operations, Core $9 for 10k, Pro $16 for 10k + advanced features. Enterprises needing unlimited operations pay custom. Compared to Zapier, Make often offers more operations per dollar at the same tier, and n8n offers self-hosted flat-rate alternatives for high-volume users.
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.
Simple scenarios: 1-2 hours to set up your first automation using templates. Complex multi-branch workflows: 1-2 days to design, test, and debug. Teams with prior automation experience will move faster. Plan for time to learn Make's data structure and error-handling features.
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: Manually rebuild scenarios in Make's visual editor, using native connectors. Export Zapier workflows for reference.
- →From Integromat: Existing scenarios and data stores carry over; account migration may require manual reconnection of apps.
- ↗To n8n: Export scenario logic as a blueprint, then rebuild nodes using n8n's visual editor.
- ↗To Zapier: Use Zapier's built-in Make (Integromat) integration to trigger Zaps from Make scenarios.
- ↗To custom code: Extract scenario logic and use Make's API endpoints to port to a custom solution.
Integrations
Resources & Guides
Tutorials & Learning
Make.com 自動化入門チュートリアル
Kevin Stratvert
Make.com 初心者向けチュートリアル （完全ガイド）
Metics Media
Make.com Automatisierungs-Tutorial für Anfänger (Deutsch)
Programmieren lernen
YouTube returned 6 videos for “Make”, and we withheld 2: 2 could not be judged, because “Make” is a single word that other videos use for other things. Showing the 4 we can prove are about Make.
Official links
Tools that pair well with Make
Common stack mates teams adopt alongside Make, with the specific reason each pairing earns its keep.
Integrately
No-code app automation with 20M+ ready-made 1-click workflows across 1,500+ apps, priced well below Zapier and Make.
Adept
AI workflow automation that chains actions across desktop and web apps.
Gumloop
Visual AI agent platform for building, deploying, and governing multi-agent workflows that run inside Slack, Teams, Gmail, and Outlook.
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
If your priority is AI agent automation on a budget with self-hosting flexibility, pick Activepieces. If you need the widest integration library and advanced workflow logic (routers, iterators) across a massive app ecosystem, Make is your safer bet. Both are solid, but Activepieces leans into AI-first innovation while Make excels in general-purpose automation scale.
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
If you're an enterprise needing governed, security-first AI agent orchestration across critical systems like SAP or Workday, Workato is the clear choice despite opaque pricing. For most teams (marketing, ops, SMBs) wanting a powerful, visual automation platform with a generous free tier and 3,000+ connectors, Make delivers exceptional value and flexibility. Decide based on your scale and governance needs: Workato for heavy compliance and multi-agent AI, Make for fast, versatile workflow automation without enterprise overhead.
Alternatives to Make
View all
Integrately
No-code app automation with 20M+ ready-made 1-click workflows across 1,500+ apps, priced well below Zapier and Make.
Frequently Asked Questions
Categories
Best-of guides
Used Make? Help shape our editorial sentiment research.