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:

  1. List all active Zaps with their trigger app, action apps, and task consumption
  2. Identify Zap dependencies: Which Zaps feed data to other Zaps? Which use Zapier Tables?
  3. Record monthly task volume per Zap from the Zapier Task History dashboard
  4. Note premium app connectors that may require verification of Make equivalents
  5. 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

  1. Start with the highest-volume Zaps to maximize cost savings immediately
  2. Recreate the trigger: Find the equivalent Watch/Instant module in Make
  3. Map data fields: Make uses a visual data mapping interface -- click fields to map from previous modules
  4. Add transformation logic: Replace Zapier Formatter steps with Make's built-in functions
  5. Configure error handling: Add Error Handler modules (Make's equivalent of Zapier's error path)
  6. Test with real data: Run the scenario manually to verify output matches the original Zap

Step 5: Run Parallel and Cut Over

  1. Run both platforms simultaneously for 1-2 weeks to verify Make scenarios produce identical results
  2. Monitor for discrepancies: Compare output records between Zapier and Make for the same input events
  3. Disable Zaps one at a time as each Make scenario is verified
  4. Keep Zapier account active for 30 days after full cutover in case rollback is needed
  5. 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

Written & reviewed by Rafal Fila · Last updated:

Related Tools

Related 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, Kissflow 5.8 and ServiceNow 4.8, scored 22 September 2026 on the five weighted criteria. Those criteria cover the step type, the approver's account or licence, the routes available on a rejection, the audit record, and the meter that charges for the decision, and none of them can tell a review from a rubber stamp, so the methodology adds a check readers can run on any product in a few minutes: whether the decision record tells a considered approval from an instant one. Every figure was read from a vendor-owned surface and carries its own date.

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 neighbouring pages on this site answer different questions. Best Process Orchestration Platforms 2026 scores multi-step process control, error handling and state management. Best AI Agent Platforms 2026 scores building and hosting the agent itself. This page scores the layer between them: the connective tissue that lets an agent already built elsewhere reach the applications a business actually runs on. A platform that leads one of those pages can place low here, and two of them do. Scores derive from application and action catalogue counts, the exposure model each platform uses to publish those catalogues to an agent, setup effort, failure handling and cost per agent action. Every figure was retrieved from a vendor-owned surface on 11 August 2026 unless an earlier date is stated against it.

Dive Deeper

comparison

Moxo vs Lindy in 2026: Who Presses Approve When the Agent Asks

Lindy, founded in 2023, sells an AI teammate that lives in Slack and in each person's inbox; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, runs multi-party processes where approvals are steps only a person can close. Moxo wins three rounds to two: who closes the step, work across companies and the record. Lindy wins reach and testing. Vendor pages and docs read 28 September 2026.

comparison

Moxo vs Kissflow in 2026: What an Outside Approver Costs, and What the Record Proves

Moxo and Kissflow both sell approvals to people who do not write code, and each wins one round outright: Moxo's Web and Headless SDKs run the approval inside the buyer's own product, under the buyer's own sign-in. Kissflow's portal audit log stamps every event with an actor, a device and an IP, where Moxo publishes no field list. Both answers are quoted, not priced, and both meters punish a one-step request sent to hundreds of clients. Cost, the decision record, rejection routes, AI metering and governance, verified 14 to 23 September 2026.

comparison

Moxo vs Camunda 8 in 2026: BPMN User Tasks for Staff, Step Types for Outsiders

Camunda 8 can fix a process under cases already running, since active instances migrate onto a corrected definition and, for Camunda user tasks, "a migrated active user task remains assigned to the same user". Moxo keeps the shared queue that Camunda's Tasklist V2 stops evaluating, with desks that are "a shared inbox that multiple users can pick work from". Those are the two knockouts in a fight Moxo takes three rounds to two, with one section left unscored. Portability, AI review gates and a published price decide the rest, verified 14 to 23 September 2026.