How does Make's pricing compare to Zapier in 2026?
Quick Answer: Make is significantly cheaper than Zapier at every tier. Make's free plan includes 1,000 operations/month versus Zapier's 100 tasks. At the paid entry level, Make charges $9/month billed annually for 10,000 operations while Zapier's entry annual price of $19.99/month includes a much smaller task allowance. For teams running 50,000+ automations monthly, Make can be 3-5x cheaper.
Make vs Zapier Pricing: A Complete Cost Comparison
Make (formerly Integromat) and Zapier are the two most popular hosted automation platforms, but their pricing models work very differently. Understanding these differences can save the team hundreds or thousands of dollars per year.
Understanding the Pricing Models
Zapier charges per task. A task is consumed every time an action step runs in your Zap. Trigger and filter steps are free, but each action step in a multi-step Zap counts individually. A 5-step Zap running once consumes 4 tasks.
Make charges per operation. An operation is consumed when a module processes a bundle of data. The key difference: Make's operations tend to cover more ground per unit because Make's modules are more granular and each data bundle processed counts as one operation.
Side-by-Side Pricing Comparison
| Feature | Make | Zapier |
|---|---|---|
| Free Tier | 1,000 ops/month, 2 scenarios | 100 tasks/month |
| Entry Paid | $9/month for 10,000 ops | $19.99/month (annual), smaller allowance |
| Mid Tier | $16/month for 10,000 ops + more features | Higher Zapier tiers (allowances scale with price) |
| Team Tier | $29/month for 10,000 ops + teams | ~$69/month per user (annual) + teams |
| High Volume | $99/month for 40,000 ops | High Zapier tiers (custom) |
| Multi-Step Workflows | Included on all plans | Paid plans only |
| Minimum Polling Interval | 1 minute (paid) | 1 minute (paid) |
Cost at Different Scales
Here is what each platform costs at various usage levels:
| Monthly Usage | Make Cost | Zapier Cost | Savings with Make |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 actions | Free | ~$20-30 (entry plan) | $19.99/month |
| 5,000 actions | $9/month billed annually | Higher Zapier tiers | $40/month |
| 10,000 actions | $9/month | $99/month | $90/month |
| 25,000 actions | $29/month | $159/month | $130/month |
| 50,000 actions | $99/month | High Zapier tiers (custom) | $200/month |
| 100,000 actions | $159/month | $599/month | $440/month |
Note: Exact costs vary based on plan features and annual vs monthly billing. Task/operation counts are approximate equivalents.
Operations vs Tasks: Why Make Is Cheaper
The pricing gap comes from fundamental model differences. In Zapier, a 5-step Zap that processes 100 records uses 400 tasks (4 action steps times 100). In Make, the same workflow might use 500 operations, but Make's per-operation cost is dramatically lower. At the entry paid tier, Zapier costs $0.027 per task while Make costs $0.0009 per operation.
Make also includes multi-step scenarios on its free plan, while Zapier's free tier is more restrictive on multi-step automation. This alone makes Make the stronger free option for multi-step automations.
When Zapier Is Still the Better Value
- App coverage matters most: Zapier supports 9,000+ apps vs Make's 3,000+ (mid-2026). If a critical app is only on Zapier, the premium may be worth it.
- Ease of use is paramount: Zapier's linear builder is faster for simple trigger-action workflows.
- Enterprise requirements: Zapier's enterprise plan offers SAML SSO, advanced admin controls, and dedicated account management that some organizations require.
When Make Wins on Price
- Any volume above 1,000 operations/month: Make's free tier alone can exceed Zapier's entry-plan allowance
- Multi-step workflows: included free on Make, paid-only on Zapier
- Data-heavy automations: Make's visual router and data transformation tools mean fewer modules needed
- Teams scaling up: the cost gap widens dramatically at higher volumes, saving $200-$400/month at 50,000+ operations
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 AutomationActivepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationAutomatisch
Open-source Zapier alternative
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.