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, 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
- 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.