Make, formerly Integromat, is where I send people who hit the wall with Zapier, either its per-task pricing or its flat, linear logic. It gives you more control over how an automation actually runs, and it costs less per unit of work, which is a rare combination.
What it does best
The visual scenario builder is the real differentiator. Workflows with branching conditions, data transformations, and proper error handling are far easier to build and maintain on Make's canvas than in Zapier's step-by-step list. The cases where it pulls ahead are the messy ones: syncing leads across CRMs, firing email sequences off external events, and chewing through webhook data. When an automation has to make decisions rather than just pass data from A to B, this is the better tool.
That show-your-work approach now extends to its AI features, which is where Make draws its sharpest contrast with Zapier. Make AI agents and the Make Grid let you build and watch agentic workflows on the same visual canvas, so you can see the steps an agent takes and where it makes a decision rather than trusting a black box. When an AI agent is acting on your behalf, being able to see exactly what it did is the difference that matters, and it is the reason teams that care about auditability lean toward Make here.
Pricing and what you actually get
This is where Make wins on paper. The Core plan is roughly $10 to $12/month for 10,000 operations, which works out around half the per-operation cost of Zapier's comparable tier. For automations that touch several steps per trigger, that gap compounds fast. Unused operations also roll over a month on paid plans, which softens the sting of a spiky month. The free plan gives you 1,000 operations and two active scenarios, fine for testing, not enough to run a business on.
One more option worth flagging if you are early-stage: Make runs a startup program that gives eligible companies up to six months free, with full access to its features. If you are building your automation stack before you have revenue, that is a genuinely useful on-ramp, and it is the kind of head start that makes it easy to standardize on Make before the bills start.
Where it falls short
The power comes with a steeper learning curve. Your first few scenarios take longer to build than the equivalent Zaps, and the canvas can feel intimidating before it clicks. The app integration library, while now past 3,000, is still smaller than Zapier's, so check that your specific niche apps are covered before you commit.
Who it's for
Anyone running multi-step automations who cares about cost per operation and wants real branching logic: marketing ops, agencies, and technically comfortable small teams. If you only need simple two-app connections and want the absolute largest integration catalog with the gentlest onboarding, Zapier is still the easier pick.
Getting the most out of it
Add a Router module early, before you think you need it, rather than after. Routing for different conditions up front means you can extend a scenario later without tearing it down and rebuilding. The people who lose the most time are the ones who build a clean linear scenario, then try to bolt conditions on once requirements change.
