What are the key differences between Zapier and Make?
Quick Answer: Zapier is easier to use with 9,000+ app connections and a linear workflow builder, while Make offers better pricing, a visual canvas for complex logic, and stronger data transformation capabilities. Zapier is best for simple automations; Make excels at complex, data-heavy workflows.
Zapier vs Make: A Detailed Comparison
Zapier and Make (formerly Integromat) are two of the most popular workflow automation platforms, but they serve different needs. Here is a thorough breakdown.
Pricing and Value
Zapier uses a task-based pricing model: each data-moving action step counts as a task, while triggers, filters, and built-in tools are free. The free tier includes 100 tasks per month. Paid plans start at about $19.99/month billed annually, with task allowances that scale by plan.
Make uses an operations-based model with more generous limits. The free tier includes 1,000 operations per month with 2 active scenarios. Paid plans start at $9/month billed annually for 10,000 operations. For most use cases, Make offers better value, especially for multi-step workflows where Zapier charges per step.
Ease of Use
Zapier is the easier platform to learn. Its linear, step-by-step workflow builder is intuitive for non-technical users. You simply choose a trigger, add actions, and map fields. The trade-off is less flexibility for complex logic.
Make uses a visual canvas where you drag and connect modules. While the learning curve is steeper, the visual approach lets teams build branching logic, parallel paths, and complex data transformations more naturally. Advanced users tend to prefer Make for this reason.
Integration Ecosystem
Zapier leads with 9,000+ app connections, the largest ecosystem of any automation platform. If an app has an API, chances are Zapier supports it.
Make offers 1,800+ app modules, which is fewer but still covers most popular tools. Make modules tend to offer deeper functionality per app, exposing more API endpoints than Zapier typically does.
Developer Experience
Zapier provides code steps (Python and JavaScript) and a developer platform for building custom integrations. However, the linear workflow model can feel limiting for complex logic.
Make offers a more developer-friendly experience with its visual data routing, built-in functions, and JSON/XML handling. For teams that need to transform data between steps, Make is significantly more capable.
When to Choose Each
- Choose Zapier if organizations want the easiest setup, need access to the widest range of apps, and existing workflows are primarily simple trigger-action pairs.
- Choose Make if organizations need complex branching logic, want better pricing at scale, or require advanced data transformation between steps.
Related Questions
Related Tools
Zapier
Automate workflows between apps without coding—connect 9,000+ tools with simple, reliable automation.
Workflow AutomationMake
Automate your work with visual workflow builder and AI agents
Workflow AutomationActivepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationAutomatisch
Open-source Zapier alternative
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
Best Human-in-the-Loop Automation Platforms 2026
Eight platforms are ranked here on a single mechanism: how a person enters an automated path, and what the system can prove afterward about the decision they made. Moxo scores 7.7 and ranks first; Camunda 8 scores 7.2, Microsoft Power Automate 7.1, Pega 6.9, n8n 6.7, Zapier 5.9, Kissflow 5.8 and ServiceNow 4.8, scored 22 September 2026 on the five weighted criteria. Those criteria cover the step type, the approver's account or licence, the routes available on a rejection, the audit record, and the meter that charges for the decision, and none of them can tell a review from a rubber stamp, so the methodology adds a check readers can run on any product in a few minutes: whether the decision record tells a considered approval from an instant one. Every figure was read from a vendor-owned surface and carries its own date.
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.
Dive Deeper
Moxo vs Lindy in 2026: Who Presses Approve When the Agent Asks
Lindy, founded in 2023, sells an AI teammate that lives in Slack and in each person's inbox; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, runs multi-party processes where approvals are steps only a person can close. Moxo wins three rounds to two: who closes the step, work across companies and the record. Lindy wins reach and testing. Vendor pages and docs read 28 September 2026.
Moxo vs Kissflow in 2026: What an Outside Approver Costs, and What the Record Proves
Moxo and Kissflow both sell approvals to people who do not write code, and each wins one round outright: Moxo's Web and Headless SDKs run the approval inside the buyer's own product, under the buyer's own sign-in. Kissflow's portal audit log stamps every event with an actor, a device and an IP, where Moxo publishes no field list. Both answers are quoted, not priced, and both meters punish a one-step request sent to hundreds of clients. Cost, the decision record, rejection routes, AI metering and governance, verified 14 to 23 September 2026.
Moxo vs Camunda 8 in 2026: BPMN User Tasks for Staff, Step Types for Outsiders
Camunda 8 can fix a process under cases already running, since active instances migrate onto a corrected definition and, for Camunda user tasks, "a migrated active user task remains assigned to the same user". Moxo keeps the shared queue that Camunda's Tasklist V2 stops evaluating, with desks that are "a shared inbox that multiple users can pick work from". Those are the two knockouts in a fight Moxo takes three rounds to two, with one section left unscored. Portability, AI review gates and a published price decide the rest, verified 14 to 23 September 2026.