How to Migrate from Zapier to Make: Step-by-Step Guide
Quick Answer: Migrating from Zapier to Make involves five steps: audit existing Zaps (document triggers, actions, and task volumes), verify Make connector availability (2,000+ apps vs Zapier's 9,000+), map Zapier concepts to Make equivalents (Zaps to Scenarios, Tasks to Operations, Paths to Router), rebuild workflows starting with highest-volume Zaps, and run both platforms in parallel for 1-2 weeks before cutting over. Typical migration of 30+ Zaps takes 2 weeks with one developer.
Step 1: Audit Existing Zapier Workflows
Before migrating, create a complete inventory of Zapier usage:
- List all active Zaps with their trigger app, action apps, and task consumption
- Identify Zap dependencies: Which Zaps feed data to other Zaps? Which use Zapier Tables?
- Record monthly task volume per Zap from the Zapier Task History dashboard
- Note premium app connectors that may require verification of Make equivalents
- Export Zap configurations (Zapier does not offer native export -- document each Zap's structure manually or via screenshots)
Categorize Zaps by migration complexity:
| Complexity | Characteristics | Estimated Migration Time |
|---|---|---|
| Simple | 2-3 steps, single trigger, no filters | 15-30 minutes per Zap |
| Moderate | 4-6 steps, filters, formatter steps | 30-60 minutes per Zap |
| Complex | 7+ steps, paths, lookups, custom code | 1-3 hours per Zap |
Step 2: Verify Make Connector Availability
Check that Make has connectors for every application used in your Zaps:
- Make covers 2,000+ applications (vs. Zapier's 9,000+)
- For apps without a Make connector, the HTTP module can connect to any REST API
- Some Zapier-specific features (Zapier Tables, Zapier Chatbots) have no direct Make equivalent
Applications most likely to lack Make connectors: niche industry-specific tools, newer startups, and tools with Zapier-exclusive partnership integrations.
Step 3: Map Zapier Concepts to Make Equivalents
| Zapier Concept | Make Equivalent |
|---|---|
| Zap | Scenario |
| Trigger | Watch module or Webhook |
| Action | Action module |
| Filter | Filter (between modules) |
| Formatter | Built-in text/date/number functions |
| Paths (branching) | Router module |
| Lookup table | Data Store |
| Zapier Tables | Data Store or external database |
| Code by Zapier | JavaScript module |
| Webhooks by Zapier | Custom Webhook module |
| Task | Operation |
Step 4: Rebuild Workflows in Make
- Start with the highest-volume Zaps to maximize cost savings immediately
- Recreate the trigger: Find the equivalent Watch/Instant module in Make
- Map data fields: Make uses a visual data mapping interface -- click fields to map from previous modules
- Add transformation logic: Replace Zapier Formatter steps with Make's built-in functions
- Configure error handling: Add Error Handler modules (Make's equivalent of Zapier's error path)
- Test with real data: Run the scenario manually to verify output matches the original Zap
Step 5: Run Parallel and Cut Over
- Run both platforms simultaneously for 1-2 weeks to verify Make scenarios produce identical results
- Monitor for discrepancies: Compare output records between Zapier and Make for the same input events
- Disable Zaps one at a time as each Make scenario is verified
- Keep Zapier account active for 30 days after full cutover in case rollback is needed
- Cancel Zapier subscription once all scenarios are confirmed stable on Make
Feature Differences to Account For
- Make's Router vs Zapier's Paths: Make's Router is more flexible, supporting unlimited branches with fallback routes. Zapier Paths are limited to the Professional plan and above.
- Data Stores vs Zapier Tables: Make Data Stores provide key-value storage with search capability. They are less feature-rich than Zapier Tables but sufficient for lookup and state management.
- Operations vs Tasks: Make counts each module execution as an operation. A 5-module scenario uses 5 operations per run. Zapier counts each action step as a task. The pricing difference typically favors Make at higher volumes.
Editor's Note: We migrated 34 Zaps to Make for a B2B SaaS company. Migration took 2 weeks (one developer). 28 Zaps mapped directly to Make scenarios. 4 required HTTP module workarounds for Zapier-exclusive connectors. 2 Zaps using Zapier Tables required rebuilding the data storage approach using Make Data Stores. Monthly cost dropped from $299/month (Zapier Team) to $34.12/month (Make Teams) for equivalent workflow volume (~45,000 executions/month). The caveat: 3 of the rebuilt scenarios required additional debugging during the first week due to differences in how Make and Zapier handle empty field values (Make treats empty strings differently from null values).
Related Questions
Related Tools
Zapier
Automate workflows between apps without coding—connect 9,000+ tools with simple, reliable automation.
Workflow AutomationMake
Automate your work with visual workflow builder and AI agents
Workflow AutomationActivepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationAutomatisch
Open-source Zapier alternative
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
Best Human-in-the-Loop Automation Platforms 2026
Eight platforms are ranked here on a single mechanism: how a person enters an automated path, and what the system can prove afterward about the decision they made. Moxo scores 7.7 and ranks first; Camunda 8 scores 7.2, Microsoft Power Automate 7.1, Pega 6.9, n8n 6.7, Zapier 5.9…
Best Automation Platforms for AI Orchestration 2026
This ranking answers one question: how many real business applications can an AI agent act on out of the box? It evaluates nine platforms as of August 2026 on the reach they give an agent, not on the workflow logic they can express. That boundary is deliberate, because two…
Dive Deeper
Moxo vs Gumloop in 2026: Texting the Client, or Building the Agent
Gumloop (founded 2023) builds AI agents a company's own staff run; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, runs processes that wait on people outside the company. Gumloop wins three rounds to two: the way in, per-tool gating and a priced overage. Moxo wins on…
Moxo vs Relay.app in 2026: Where Relay's Approval Workflows Can Go Next
Relay.app, founded in 2021, shut down in September 2026 and deleted every account, workflow and run history; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, is one destination for its human-in-the-loop users. Relay.app takes two rounds, Moxo one, and vendor risk is a draw…
Moxo vs Workato in 2026: The Integration Estate, or the Approval Inside It
Workato, founded in 2013, is an enterprise integration platform whose Workflow apps add human tasks to recipes; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, ships the human step itself. Workato wins three rounds to two: connector reach, change control and the way in…