Make vs Zapier: Which Automation Tool Should You Choose?

Make (formerly Integromat) and Zapier are the two biggest players in no-code automation. Both connect your apps and automate workflows. Both have free tiers. Both will save you hours of manual work.

So which one should you use?

I've built hundreds of automations on both platforms. Here's my honest take.

Quick Verdict

Choose Zapier if: You want the easiest setup, have simple linear workflows, and don't mind paying more for convenience.

Choose Make if: You need complex logic, visual workflow design, or want to save money at scale.

Pricing Comparison

This is where the biggest difference shows up.

The math is clear: Make gives you roughly 10x more operations for less money.

But there's a catch. Zapier counts "tasks" (successful actions), while Make counts "operations" (every step). A 5-step workflow costs 1 task in Zapier but 5 operations in Make.

Real Cost Example

Let's say you have an automation:

1. New form submission (trigger)
2. Look up customer in CRM
3. Create invoice in billing system
4. Send confirmation email
5. Log to spreadsheet

In Zapier: 1 task per run (trigger + 4 actions = 1 task)

In Make: 5 operations per run

If this runs 1,000 times per month:

• Zapier: 1,000 tasks (Starter plan, $29.99)
• Make: 5,000 operations (Starter plan, $10.59)

Even accounting for the operation count difference, Make usually costs 30-50% less at scale.

Hidden Cost Factors

Zapier premium apps: Some integrations require higher-tier plans. Salesforce, HubSpot, and other enterprise tools often need Pro or Teams.

Make data transfer: Large file operations consume more operations. Downloading a 10MB file counts differently than a simple API call.

Both platforms: Multi-step Zaps in Zapier and scenarios with many modules in Make cost more as complexity grows.

Feature Comparison

Ease of Use

Zapier wins here. The interface is simpler. You pick a trigger, pick an action, map the fields, done. Most people can build their first Zap in 10 minutes.

The step-by-step wizard holds your hand:

Step 1: When this happens...
   → Choose app (Google Forms)
   → Choose trigger (New Response)
   → Connect account
   → Test trigger

Step 2: Do this...
   → Choose app (Slack)
   → Choose action (Send Message)
   → Map fields
   → Test action

Make has a steeper learning curve. The visual canvas is powerful but takes time to understand. You drag modules onto a canvas, connect them with lines, configure each module separately.

[Trigger Module] ──→ [Action Module] ──→ [Action Module]
                 └─→ [Router] ──→ [Branch A]
                            └──→ [Branch B]

My take: If you're building one or two simple automations, Zapier's simplicity is worth the premium. If you're building many automations or anything complex, invest the time to learn Make. The learning curve is maybe 2-3 hours, and it pays off quickly.

Workflow Complexity

Make handles complexity better than Zapier. Significantly better.

Make Advantages

Visual workflow canvas: See the entire flow at once. Understand complex logic visually. Share screenshots with non-technical stakeholders.

Routers for conditional branching: Send data down different paths based on conditions. Available on all plans.

[New Order] ──→ [Router]
                  ├── Stock > 0 ──→ [Create Shipment] ──→ [Notify Customer]
                  └── Stock = 0 ──→ [Add to Backorder] ──→ [Notify Purchasing]

Iterators and aggregators: Process arrays of data naturally. Loop through items, then aggregate results.

[Get Order Items] ──→ [Iterator] ──→ [Process Each Item] ──→ [Aggregator] ──→ [Send Summary]

Error handling with dedicated routes: Catch errors, log them, send alerts, and recover gracefully.

[API Call] ──→ [Success Path]
          └── Error ──→ [Log Error] ──→ [Retry Logic] ──→ [Alert Admin]

Data stores: Built-in key-value storage. Track state between runs, cache data, build counters.

Zapier's Approach

Linear step-by-step flows: Works well for simple automations. Harder to visualize complex logic.

Paths for branching: Available on Pro plan and above. Serviceable but less intuitive than Make's routers.

Filters: Add conditions between steps. Useful but limited compared to full routing.

Formatter: Manipulate data between steps. Text transformations, date formatting, calculations.

For simple "when X happens, do Y" automations, both work fine. For "when X happens, check A and B, then do Y or Z depending on conditions, process each item in a list, and handle errors gracefully" - Make is significantly easier to build and maintain.

App Integrations

Zapier has more integrations: 6,000+ apps vs Make's 1,800+.

But quantity isn't everything.

Integration Quality

Zapier's integrations tend to have more triggers and actions per app. Deep integrations with popular tools.

Make's integrations often allow more customization. Access to API endpoints that Zapier doesn't expose.

The HTTP Module Equalizer

Both platforms support webhooks and HTTP modules. If an app has an API, you can connect to it.

Make's HTTP module is more powerful:

• Full control over request headers
• OAuth2 connections that work with any API
• Parse any response format
• Handle pagination automatically

[HTTP Module]
├── URL: https://api.example.com/v1/orders
├── Method: GET
├── Headers: Authorization: Bearer {{token}}
├── Query: status=pending&limit=100
└── Parse response: JSON → Array of orders

Niche App Coverage

Zapier wins for niche tools. That obscure industry-specific CRM or the new startup's app - Zapier probably has it first.

Before choosing: Check both platforms for your specific apps. Don't assume.

Reliability and Monitoring

Both platforms are generally reliable. 99.9%+ uptime on paper.

Execution Visibility

Make: Detailed execution logs show every step, every piece of data, every error. Debugging is straightforward. You can see exactly what happened.

Zapier: Task history shows runs, but less detail on what happened inside. Debugging complex Zaps requires more guesswork.

Error Behavior

Zapier: Tends to fail silently. You might not know an automation broke until you notice missing data days later. Alerting requires additional setup.

Make: Failed executions are visible and can trigger notifications. Built-in error handling routes let you catch and respond to failures automatically.

Recovery Options

Make: Re-run failed executions. Edit scenario and replay the failed data. Schedule automatic retries.

Zapier: Replay tasks (limited on lower tiers). Less flexibility in recovering from failures.

Real-World Examples

Example 1: Lead Notification

New form submission → Send Slack message

Zapier: 2 minutes to set up.

1. Choose trigger (Google Forms → New Response)
2. Choose action (Slack → Send Channel Message)
3. Map form fields to message
4. Test and activate

Make: 5 minutes.

1. Add Google Forms module
2. Connect to Slack module
3. Configure message format
4. Test and activate

Winner: Zapier. For simple stuff, it's just faster.

Example 2: Order Processing

New order → Check inventory → If in stock, create shipment and notify customer. If not, add to backorder list and notify purchasing.

Zapier approach:

• Multiple Zaps chained together, or
• One Zap with Paths (Pro plan required)
• Harder to visualize the complete flow
• More difficult to maintain

Make approach:

• Single scenario with router
• Clear visual representation
• Easy to modify conditions
• Built-in error handling

Winner: Make. Complex logic is its strength.

Example 3: Data Sync with Deduplication

Sync contacts between two CRMs, avoid duplicates, track sync status

Zapier: Awkward. Requires multiple Zaps, external storage for tracking, workarounds for deduplication.

Make: Natural fit. Use data store to track synced records, iterator to process batches, aggregator to summarize results.

Winner: Make, by a lot.

API and Webhook Capabilities

Both platforms support webhooks for custom integrations.

Incoming Webhooks

Zapier: Webhooks by Zapier app. Parse JSON or form data. Limited parsing for complex payloads.

Make: Custom webhooks with full JSON parsing, query string handling, header access. Can handle almost any webhook format.

Outgoing Requests

Zapier: Webhooks action sends data out. Code steps (JavaScript/Python) for complex transformations. Pro plan for Code.

Make: HTTP module with full request control. JSON parsing built-in. No code needed for most API calls.

Rate Limiting

Both respect API rate limits. Make provides more tools for handling them:

• Sleep modules to pause between calls
• Rate limit settings per connection
• Automatic retry with backoff

Team Collaboration

Zapier Teams

• Shared app connections
• Folder organization
• Role-based permissions
• Shared task allocation

Make Organizations

• Shared scenarios and templates
• Team-level data stores
• Detailed permissions per scenario
• Usage analytics across team

Both offer collaboration features at higher tiers. Make's are available at lower price points.

When to Use Each

Use Zapier When:

• You're new to automation
• Your workflows are simple and linear
• You need a specific integration that Make doesn't have
• Speed of setup matters more than cost
• You have a small number of automations (under 10)
• You prefer a guided, wizard-style interface

Use Make When:

• You run many automations (cost adds up fast)
• You need complex conditional logic
• You want visual workflow design
• You're comfortable with a learning curve (2-3 hours)
• You need detailed execution logs and debugging
• You're processing arrays of data regularly
• You need error handling beyond "retry once"

Migration Between Platforms

Zapier to Make

Common reasons to switch:

• Hitting Zapier's pricing ceiling
• Needing complexity Zapier can't handle
• Wanting better visibility into executions

Migration approach:

1. Export your Zap list (manual documentation)
2. Recreate scenarios in Make, starting with highest-volume automations
3. Run both platforms in parallel for a week
4. Verify data consistency
5. Disable Zapier Zaps

Time estimate: 1-2 hours per complex Zap. Simple Zaps take 15-30 minutes each.

Make to Zapier

Less common, but happens when:

• Team prefers simpler interface
• Specific integration only available in Zapier
• Reducing technical complexity

Same parallel-run approach applies.

Alternative: Self-Hosted n8n

If you're running thousands of automations, consider n8n. It's self-hosted, open source, and has no per-operation fees.

Best for: Technical teams running high-volume automations where per-operation costs become significant.

Related: n8n Automation Examples - practical workflows you can build today.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I use both Zapier and Make?

Yes. Many businesses run simple automations on Zapier and complex ones on Make. No conflict.

Which is more reliable?

Both claim 99.9%+ uptime. In practice, I've had fewer unexplained failures with Zapier, but Make's error visibility makes problems easier to fix.

Can I try before committing?

Both have free tiers. Zapier's free tier is limited (100 tasks/month). Make's is more generous (1,000 ops/month). Test your actual workflows before deciding.

What about security?

Both are SOC 2 compliant. Both encrypt data in transit and at rest. Both support SSO on enterprise plans. For most businesses, security is comparable.

Do they integrate with each other?

Not directly, but you can use webhooks to chain them. Not recommended - pick one platform.

Bottom Line

There's no universal winner. Zapier is easier. Make is cheaper and more powerful. Pick based on your specific needs, technical comfort level, and budget.

For most small businesses just starting with automation, Zapier's simplicity wins. You'll pay a premium, but you'll get results fast.

For growing businesses with complex workflows, Make's flexibility and pricing make more sense. Invest the 2-3 hours to learn it - the payoff is significant.

For high-volume automation at scale, consider self-hosted options like n8n.

Need help setting up automation for your business? Check out my workflow automation services or let's talk about what would work best for your situation.