Zapier vs Make in 2026: Integration Count vs Visual Power
A detailed comparison of Zapier and Make covering integration ecosystems, pricing at five volume tiers, visual builders, data transformation, conditional logic, error handling, and enterprise features.
The Bottom Line: Zapier's entry pricing starts at about $19.99-29.99/month with a much smaller included allowance than Make's 10,000 operations for $9/month billed annually; Make provides superior data transformation and conditional branching, but Zapier has 4x more native integrations.
Zapier vs Make: Two Approaches to Cloud Automation
Zapier and Make (formerly Integromat) are the two dominant cloud-hosted automation platforms. Zapier leads in integration count and simplicity. Make leads in visual power, data transformation, and per-operation pricing efficiency. Both are cloud-only, both target non-technical to semi-technical users, and both have been rapidly adding AI features throughout 2025-2026.
This comparison focuses on the practical differences that affect daily use, cost at scale, and workflow complexity.
Integration Ecosystems
Zapier lists over 9,000 app integrations. Make offers approximately 1,800 app modules. The raw numbers, however, do not tell the full story.
Zapier's connectors tend to expose the most common triggers and actions for each app. Make's modules often go deeper, exposing more API endpoints, supporting batch operations, and providing fine-grained field mapping. For mainstream SaaS apps (Slack, Google Sheets, Salesforce, HubSpot), both platforms provide excellent coverage.
Editor's Note: We built a Pipedrive-to-DATEV integration (CRM to German accounting software) on both platforms. Zapier had dedicated connectors for both apps; setup took 30 minutes. Make had a Pipedrive module but needed an HTTP module with custom API calls for DATEV — setup took 2.5 hours including authentication configuration. For common app pairs, Zapier's breadth is a real time-saver. For anything requiring custom API work, Make's HTTP module is more capable than Zapier's Webhooks by Zapier.
Pricing Models (as of March 2026)
| Zapier | Make | |
|---|---|---|
| Unit | Tasks (each action = 1 task) | Operations (each module = 1 op) |
| Free | 100 tasks/mo, 5 Zaps | 1,000 ops/mo, 2 scenarios |
| Entry | from $29.99/mo (~$19.99 annual) | $10.59/mo (10,000 ops) |
| Mid | Higher allowances at higher prices | $18.82/mo (10,000 ops) |
| Teams | $34.12/mo (10,000 ops) | |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom |
Pricing Calculator: Cost at 5 Volume Tiers
| Monthly Volume | Zapier (est.) | Make (est.) | Savings with Make |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 tasks/ops | $29.99 | $10.59 | 65% |
| 5,000 tasks/ops | Higher Zapier tiers (varies by plan) | $10.59 | Substantial |
| 10,000 tasks/ops | $103.50 | $18.82 | 82% |
| 50,000 tasks/ops | $448.50 | $34.12 | 92% |
| 100,000 tasks/ops | Custom (~$800+) | $89.41 | ~89% |
Note: Zapier counts each data-moving action step in a Zap as a task; triggers, filters, and built-in tools are free. Make counts each module execution as one operation: a 5-module scenario run once = 5 operations. Make's included volumes are far higher at each price tier, so the effective cost per unit is substantially lower.
Visual Builder Comparison
Zapier uses a top-to-bottom linear builder. Steps execute in sequence. Branching (Paths) is available on paid plans. The interface is clean and straightforward, ideal for simple trigger-action workflows.
Make uses a horizontal canvas where scenarios flow left to right. Modules can branch, merge, iterate over arrays, handle errors on dedicated paths, and run parallel routes. The visual design handles complexity that would require multiple separate Zaps in Zapier.
Editor's Note: We built an order processing workflow that needed to: receive a webhook, split a CSV attachment, transform each row, filter by order value, and route to different destinations. In Zapier this required 3 separate Zaps chained via webhooks because the CSV parsing and conditional routing exceeded what a single Zap could handle cleanly. In Make, it was 1 scenario with an iterator, a filter, and a router — built in under 20 minutes. For simple A→B automations, Zapier is faster. For anything involving data splitting, filtering, or multiple output paths, Make is significantly more capable.
Data Transformation
Make has substantially stronger built-in data transformation. Its formula engine supports text manipulation, date math, array operations, JSON parsing, math functions, and type conversion directly within module fields. Data can be transformed between steps without custom code.
Zapier offers Formatter by Zapier for common transformations (text, numbers, dates, utilities) and Code by Zapier for JavaScript or Python. The Formatter covers many use cases but lacks Make's depth for complex data restructuring.
Conditional Logic and Routing
Make supports routers with unlimited branches, each with filter conditions. Filters can be applied between any two modules. The visual representation makes complex conditional logic immediately visible.
Zapier supports Paths (conditional branches) on Professional plans and above. Paths can be nested but quickly become difficult to manage in deeply branched workflows. The linear format does not visually represent complex routing as clearly as Make's canvas.
Error Handling
Make provides dedicated error handling routes that can be attached to any module. Error handlers can retry, ignore, commit, rollback, or route to alternative logic. The execution log shows detailed input/output data for every module in every execution.
Editor's Note: We sent 1,000 webhook payloads to both platforms within 60 seconds to test throughput and debugging. Both handled the volume without dropping requests. The difference was in debugging: Make's execution log showed every operation with full input/output data in a tabular view — we found and fixed a date formatting bug in 3 minutes. Zapier's task history required clicking into each individual task run to inspect step data. Same information was available, but the investigation took 15 minutes.
Zapier provides task replay for failed executions and basic error notifications. Error handling is improving but does not yet match Make's granularity for per-step error routing.
Enterprise Features
Both platforms offer SSO, team workspaces, shared connections, and role-based access at enterprise tiers. Zapier's enterprise plan includes advanced admin controls, SCIM provisioning, and a dedicated account manager. Make's enterprise tier includes custom roles, audit logs, and dedicated infrastructure options.
Decision Framework
Choose Zapier when:
- Organizations need a specific integration that only Zapier supports (check the app directory first)
- The team prefers the simplest possible interface
- Workflows are primarily simple trigger → action sequences
- Organizations want the largest template library and community resources
Choose Make when:
- Cost is a significant factor, especially at higher volumes
- Workflows involve data transformation, array handling, or multi-path routing
- Visual clarity of complex logic is important for team collaboration
- Detailed execution logging and error handling routes are needed
Tools Mentioned
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 AutomationHubSpot
All-in-one CRM platform with marketing, sales, and service automation plus a free CRM for unlimited users.
CRM AutomationPipedrive
Sales-focused CRM with visual pipeline management and workflow automation for activity-based selling.
CRM AutomationRelated Guides
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.
Related 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.
Common Questions
Can you automate a platform with no API using Zapier?
Not as a proper Zapier app. Zapier's help centre, updated 29 May 2026, says a private app can be built "for any service with a public API", and its fallbacks for a missing app are email parsing, RSS, webhooks, asking Zapier to add the app, or using a different app. Those let a no-API platform tell a Zap that something happened; none of them lets a Zap act inside the platform. The Zapier Agents Chrome extension can "run actions" on a page open in your own browser (help article updated 27 April 2026), but that is hands-on help, not a reusable Zap step.
How does Moxo keep humans in control when AI agents run a workflow?
Moxo keeps people on the decisions by design: approvals and other human steps are ones its product page says "only a person can close", and AI agents can fill preparer, advisor or reviewer slots around them (both read 15 September 2026). The checks on AI output are opt-in, though. In synthetic AutomationAtlas tests that day, an AI extract step's "Human review" and "Supervisor Agent" switches were both off by default, and the builder accepted the same role as a form's submitter and its approver.
How much does Moxo cost in 2026?
Moxo's only published price is Team: $5,000 a year, billed annually with no monthly option, for 100 flows and $100 of AI a year with unlimited seats (moxo.com/pricing, 28 September 2026). Scale (500 flows and $500 of AI a year) and Enterprise are custom quotes. There is no free plan, no published overage rate and no stated trial length, and the dollar AI allowance has no published conversion to the credits Moxo's product logs.
What is Moxo?
Moxo AI (app.moxo.com) is a process orchestration platform from Moxo, formerly Moxtra, for work where several parties, approvals and documents meet. You build templates of human steps, AI steps and automations, each run is a Flow with its own data and status, and outsiders act through account-free Magic Links. Its only published price is Team, and the AI agents start on the custom-quoted Scale plan (moxo.com/pricing, 15 September 2026). It is not Moxo Classic, the older app.