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 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
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.
QuantumBPM vs Camunda 2026: Single-Binary Challenger vs the BPMN Incumbent
QuantumBPM (launched 2026, Coroid s.r.o., Slovakia) packages a BPMN 2.0 runtime and DMN 1.5 decision engine into one Go binary backed by Temporal and PostgreSQL. Camunda (Berlin, founded 2013) is the category incumbent: Camunda 7 (Apache 2.0, in maintenance) and the Zeebe-based Camunda 8 platform. This comparison covers product structure, architecture, DMN TCK conformance with recording dates, deployment, pricing, and vendor maturity, verified July 2026.
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.