How much does Make cost in 2026?
Quick Answer: As of June 2026 Make bills in credits (1 credit = one module action), not operations. Plans are Free ($0, 1,000 credits/mo), Core ($9/mo billed annually, 10,000 credits), Pro ($16/mo), Teams ($29/mo), and custom Enterprise, with annual billing about 15% lower.
Make (formerly Integromat) changed its billing unit from operations to credits on 27 August 2025. As of June 2026, one credit equals one module action — creating a record, fetching an email, transforming data. Routers and error handlers cost no credits, and AI modules charge a variable number of credits based on the tokens, files, or pages they process.
Make pricing tiers (as of June 2026)
| Plan | Monthly price | Credits / month | Key additions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | 1,000 | 2 active scenarios, 512 MB transfer |
| Core | $9 | 10,000 | Unlimited active scenarios, 1-min scheduling, Make API |
| Pro | $16 | 10,000 | Full-text log search, custom variables, priority execution |
| Teams | $29 | 10,000 | Shared templates, team roles |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | SSO, advanced governance, dedicated support |
Annual billing reduces these rates by roughly 15%. Credit allotments scale within a tier — you buy additional credits as volume grows — and a November 2025 adjustment raised the cost of extra credits by about 25%, so a scenario that runs hot should be sized against its credit ceiling rather than the headline price.
What actually consumes credits
The credit model rewards efficient scenario design and penalises wasteful module use, which is the opposite of a flat per-task plan.
flowchart TD
A[A step runs in a scenario] --> B{What kind of module?}
B -- App action: create/fetch/update --> C[1 credit]
B -- Router / error handler --> D[0 credits]
B -- AI module --> E[Variable credits by tokens/files/pages]
E --> F[Can cost several times a normal module]
AI modules are where credits disappear fastest: a single AI summarisation or extraction step can consume several times the credits of an ordinary module, so an AI-heavy scenario that looks cheap on the tier price can drain its monthly allotment well before month end.
How Make compares
Make's credit model sits between Zapier's task-based billing and the per-execution billing of n8n. For high-volume, many-module scenarios it can be more economical than Zapier; for simple two-step automations Zapier's free and entry tiers are often simpler to reason about. Teams that need to keep all execution in their own infrastructure usually compare against self-hosted n8n instead.
Editor's Note: Across ShadowGen Make builds in 2024-26, the August 2025 switch to credits was the change clients felt most. On one content-operations scenario an AI summarisation module burned credits several times faster per run than the surrounding modules, so the scenario blew through its monthly credits two weeks early. The practice we apply now: meter AI modules in a short pilot, then size the plan against that measured burn rather than the module count. — Rafal Fila, ShadowGen
Related Questions
Related Tools
Make
Automate your work with visual workflow builder and AI agents
Workflow AutomationZapier
Automate workflows between apps without coding—connect 9,000+ tools with simple, reliable automation.
Workflow Automationn8n
Workflow automation for technical teams
Workflow AutomationActivepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
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.
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.
Dive Deeper
Client Portals vs Workflow Orchestration Platforms: What Changes When External Parties Act Inside a Process
What changes when a client or supplier has to act inside your process, not just watch it? This guide compares four client portals with four orchestration platforms on how outsiders get in, whether you pay for them and what the audit log records, from vendor sources read 14 and 15 September 2026.
Moxo vs Zapier in 2026: Human Approval Steps, External Participants and Pricing
Moxo and Zapier both put a person in front of an automated decision, from opposite ends: Moxo builds the process out of human steps and attaches AI, while Zapier pauses an automation for a reviewer through its Human in the Loop app. This guide compares approvers, rejection, AI approval, audit logs, governance and pricing, verified 14 and 15 September 2026.
Keystroke vs n8n in 2026: Agent-Built TypeScript vs the Visual Canvas
Keystroke, launched in July 2026 by Y Combinator W24 company Sprint Labs, is a code-first automation platform where AI coding agents write workflows as TypeScript in the user's repository. n8n, founded in 2019, is the most widely deployed source-available visual workflow platform, with 200,000+ users and a $2.5 billion valuation. This comparison covers the agent-authored versus canvas building models, durable execution, licensing (Elastic License 2.0 vs the Sustainable Use License), verified July 2026 pricing including Keystroke's usage metering, and the maturity gap between a days-old platform and an established ecosystem.