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 7,000+), 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 7,000+)
- 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
- What are the best workflow automation tools for technical writers in 2026?
- What are the best AI-native automation tools in 2026?
- What are the best automation tools for finance and AP teams in 2026?
- What are the best automation tools for solo founders in 2026?
- What are the best automation tools for nonprofits in 2026?
Related Tools
Activepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationAutomatisch
Open-source Zapier alternative
Workflow AutomationBardeen
AI-powered browser automation via Chrome extension
Workflow AutomationCalendly
Scheduling automation platform for booking meetings without email back-and-forth, with CRM integrations and routing forms for lead qualification.
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
Best Durable Workflow Engines for Production in 2026
A ranked list of the best durable workflow engines for production deployments in 2026. Durable workflow engines persist execution state to a database so that long-running workflows survive process restarts, deployments, and infrastructure failures. The ranking covers Temporal, Prefect, Apache Airflow, Camunda, Windmill, and n8n. Tools were evaluated on production reliability, developer experience, scalability, open-source health, and documentation quality. The shortlist intentionally mixes code-first engines (Temporal, Prefect, Airflow) with hybrid visual platforms (Camunda, Windmill, n8n) to reflect how production teams actually choose workflow engines in 2026.
Best No-Code Automation Platforms in 2026
A ranked list of no-code automation platforms in 2026. The ranking covers visual workflow builders that allow non-engineering teams to connect SaaS apps, route data, and add conditional logic without writing code. Entries cover proprietary cloud platforms (Zapier, Make, Pipedream, IFTTT) and open-source visual builders (n8n, Activepieces). Scoring reflects integration breadth, pricing accessibility, visual editor ease, reliability and error handling, and self-hosting availability.
Dive Deeper
Migrating 23 Make Scenarios to Self-Hosted n8n: a 3-Week Breakdown
Anonymized retrospective of a DTC ecommerce brand migrating 23 Make scenarios to a self-hosted n8n instance over three weeks. Tooling cost dropped from $348/month on Make Teams to roughly $12/month on a Hetzner VPS, but credential and webhook recreation consumed about 40% of total project time.
Trigger.dev vs Inngest 2026: OSS Durable Runners Compared
Trigger.dev (2022, London) is a fully Apache 2.0 durable runner with task-based authoring, machine-size selection, and first-class self-host. Inngest (2021, San Francisco) is a developer-first event-driven step platform with an open-source dev server and a managed cloud (50K step runs/month free, $20/month Hobby). This 2026 comparison covers license, programming model, pricing, observability, and self-host options.
Inngest vs Temporal 2026: Durable Functions vs Durable Workflows
Inngest (2021, San Francisco) is a developer-first durable functions platform with TypeScript and Python SDKs, 50,000 step runs/month free, and Hobby pricing from $20/month. Temporal (2019) is the heavyweight durable workflow engine with seven-language SDK coverage, Cassandra-backed scale, and Cloud pricing from roughly $200/month at low volume or $2.5-4.5K/month self-host. This 2026 comparison covers programming model, pricing, scale ceiling, and operational footprint.