Zapier vs. Make: Automation Software Compared
Zapier and Make help users automate tasks by connecting apps and setting up workflows without extensive coding. They’re popular with individuals and businesses looking to reduce repetitive work, streamline processes, and connect tools they already use.
Zapier is often considered for its straightforward setup and broad app support, while Make appeals to users who want a visual builder and more control over complex workflows. This comparison looks at their features, pricing, ease of use, integrations, and flexibility to help you choose the right fit.
Zapier VS Make: Which tool is the most popular?
| Tool | Reviews | Average rating | Positive reviews | Neutral reviews | Negative reviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier | 77 | 3.38/5 | 47 | 1 | 29 |
| Make | 10 | 3.10/5 | 5 | 1 | 4 |
Zapier is the most popular of the two, with substantially more reviews and a higher average rating. Make is least popular by review volume and has the lower average rating.
Zapier and Make: Quick Comparison Overview
| Category | Ahrefs | Semrush |
|---|---|---|
| Primary features | SEO research tools for backlink analysis, keyword research, site audits, rank tracking, and content research. | Broader digital-marketing suite covering SEO, competitor research, site audits, rank tracking, content marketing, local SEO, PPC, and social media. |
| Target audience | SEO specialists, content teams, and agencies focused on organic search and link building. | In-house marketing teams, agencies, and businesses managing several digital-marketing channels. |
| Main advantages | Strong backlink and competitor research, with a focused toolkit for finding SEO and content opportunities. | Wider range of marketing tools in one platform, especially useful for combining SEO with paid, local, and social campaigns. |
| Core value proposition | Make organic-search research and link-building workflows more effective. | Manage and measure a broader digital-marketing program from one platform. |
| Ideal use cases | Analyzing competitors’ backlinks, researching keywords and content gaps, auditing a site, and tracking organic rankings. | Coordinating SEO with PPC, local visibility, content, and social efforts; conducting cross-channel competitor research. |
Sources: Ahrefs features · Semrush features
Feature availability varies by plan and may change.
Most liked vs most disliked features of Zapier and Make
| Platform | Overall sentiment | Most appreciated | Main concerns |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier | Users value its accessibility and broad integrations, especially for automating routine work. Sentiment is tempered by pricing and occasional reliability or usability issues. | Easy-to-use interface; connections to more than 3,000 apps; time savings; automation monitoring; plans for different user needs. | Higher costs for advanced features and task limits; a learning curve; occasional delays or execution issues; sync and customization limitations; demand for clearer learning resources. |
| Make | Users appreciate its visual, customizable workflows and affordability, with reported efficiency gains. Some find it challenging to learn, and reviews point to gaps in integrations, support, and reliability. | Visual workflow builder; affordable plans and free tier; service connections; time savings; flexible workflow customization. | Requests for more integrations, especially messaging services; stronger troubleshooting documentation; more flexible operations pricing; a learning curve; occasional scenario failures. |
Key Features of Zapier vs Make
Zapier
Zapier is geared toward setting up automations quickly, often without needing to design a workflow visually.
| Key feature | How it benefits users | What stands out |
|---|---|---|
| Zaps: trigger-and-action workflows | Start an automation when something happens in one app, then carry out one or more actions in others. This helps eliminate repetitive handoffs between tools. | The trigger → action format is straightforward for beginners and works well for common business processes. |
| Large app integration catalog | Connects many popular work, marketing, sales, and productivity tools, making it easier to automate across an existing software stack. | Zapier emphasizes the breadth of its app connections. |
| Multi-step workflows and branching | Build workflows with several actions, and use conditions or paths to send information down different routes. | Offers branching within the familiar Zap workflow model. |
| Built-in utilities | Tools for tasks such as formatting data or handling workflow logic can reduce the need to add another app to a workflow. | Useful for tidying or transforming information between connected apps. |
| AI and automation tools | Add AI-related steps to workflows, such as processing information or helping automate tasks. | Zapier positions its automation product alongside a broader set of AI and workflow tools. |
More details: Zapier Features
Make
Make is designed around a visual workflow canvas, giving users a more explicit view of how data moves through an automation.
| Key feature | How it benefits users | What stands out |
|---|---|---|
| Visual scenario builder | Assemble workflows from connected modules and see how each step relates to the next. This can make complex automations easier to inspect and adjust. | Its visual-first canvas is a defining part of the Make experience. |
| Routers, filters, and branching | Send data along different routes, or continue only when specified conditions are met. This helps handle varied cases in one scenario. | The canvas makes branching logic visible as part of the workflow. |
| Data transformation and flow control | Tools for iterating over, combining, or transforming data help users manage more involved processes. | Offers detailed control over how data passes between steps. |
| Webhooks and API connections | Connect services or events beyond the standard app modules, including custom integrations. | Helpful when a needed service or use case requires a more technical connection. |
| AI capabilities and visual oversight | Make promotes AI-powered automation and tools for understanding or managing automation workflows. | Its product positioning combines visual workflow design with AI and workflow oversight features. |
More details: Make Product
In short: Zapier’s strength is an approachable trigger-and-action model and broad app connectivity. Make’s strength is visual control over workflows, especially when they involve branching or more involved data handling. Both support connecting apps and automating multi-step processes; the better fit depends on whether ease of setup or visual workflow control is the priority.
Zapier vs Make Pricing Comparison
Zapier and Make pricing comparison
Prices are in USD and reflect the entry-level usage allowance for each paid plan. Higher task or credit limits increase the price.
| Brand and tier | Monthly billing | Annual billing | Main offerings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier — Free | $0 | $0 | 100 tasks per month; two-step Zaps; basic app connections and automation features. |
| Zapier — Professional | Starts at $29.99/month | Starts at $19.99/month when paid annually ($239.88/year) | Starts at 750 tasks per month; multi-step Zaps, premium apps, webhooks, and premium features such as custom logic. |
| Zapier — Team | Starts at $103.50/month | Starts at $69/month when paid annually ($828/year) | Starts at 2,000 tasks per month; team collaboration tools, shared Zaps and app connections, and higher team usage limits. |
| Zapier — Enterprise | Custom quote | Custom quote | Tailored task volumes and enterprise-level administration, security, support, and governance features. |
| Make — Free | $0 | $0 | 1,000 credits per month; two active scenarios; scheduling at 15-minute intervals. |
| Make — Core | $10.59/month | $9/month when paid annually ($108/year) | At the 10,000-credit level; unlimited active scenarios, one-minute scheduling, and access to the Make API. |
| Make — Pro | $18.82/month | $16/month when paid annually ($192/year) | At the 10,000-credit level; Core features plus custom variables, full-text execution logs, and priority execution. |
| Make — Teams | $34.12/month | $29/month when paid annually ($348/year) | At the 10,000-credit level; Pro features plus team roles and tools for sharing and managing scenarios. |
| Make — Enterprise | Custom quote | Custom quote | Tailored limits and enterprise features such as advanced security, single sign-on, and dedicated support. |
| Pricing consideration | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|
| What usage is measured | Tasks: successful actions performed by Zaps. Paid-plan prices rise with the selected task allowance. | Credits: operations performed by scenarios. The credit cost depends on the apps and modules used. Paid-plan prices rise with the selected credit allowance. |
| Annual-billing savings | The listed entry prices are about one-third lower than monthly billing. | Annual billing is about 15% lower than monthly billing. |
| Free trial or special rate | A 14-day Professional trial may be available to new accounts; the Free plan is also available without a subscription. | A 14-day trial of paid features may be available to new accounts; the Free plan is available without a subscription. |
| Price qualification | Paid prices are starting rates and depend on task volume. | Paid prices above use a 10,000-credit allowance; prices vary with credit volume. |
Support Options Comparison: Zapier vs Make
| Support option | Zapier | Make | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Live chat | The Help Center directs users to its support options but does not clearly promise live chat for everyone. Contact methods may depend on the account or plan. | The Help Center provides a route to contact support, but does not clearly advertise general live-chat availability. | Neither help page establishes live chat as a standard option for all users. Check the contact options shown in your account. |
| Phone support | No general phone-support option is listed on the Help Center. | No general phone-support option is listed on the Help Center. | Phone support is not presented as a standard channel by either service. |
| Documentation | Searchable help articles cover setting up and troubleshooting Zaps, using Zapier features, and working with apps. | Searchable help articles cover getting started, building and troubleshooting scenarios, and using Make features and integrations. | Both offer self-serve documentation; Make’s materials use the term scenarios, while Zapier’s use Zaps. |
| Additional resources | Zapier offers learning and community resources alongside its help articles, including practical guides and tutorials. | Make provides learning and community resources, including Make Academy courses and tutorials. | Both supplement documentation with educational resources. Make highlights structured courses through Make Academy. |
| Best fit for self-service | Useful for users who want searchable setup and troubleshooting guidance for Zapier workflows. | Useful for users who want product documentation plus more structured learning through Make Academy. | Both emphasize online help; neither linked page makes phone access or universal live chat a clear feature. |
Unique Features of Zapier Vs Make
| Brand and feature | What is uncommon in automation software | Added value | Why it may decide the choice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier — Tables and Interfaces | Zapier combines workflow automation with a built-in place to store structured data and create simple user-facing forms or apps. | Teams can collect information, manage records, and trigger workflows without assembling a separate database and front-end tool. | A good fit when nontechnical teams want to build lightweight internal tools around their automations, with fewer products to configure and maintain. |
| Zapier — AI agents | Alongside fixed, rule-based workflows, Zapier offers agents that can use connected apps to carry out tasks based on a goal. | This can handle work that involves choosing actions or responding to changing information, rather than following only a rigid sequence. | Relevant when a team wants to automate less predictable tasks, while using a broad set of app connections. |
| Zapier — broad app connectivity | Zapier’s large integration catalog is a notable differentiator: automation can often connect a long tail of business apps without custom development. | It reduces the need to build and maintain API connections, especially across many different tools. | Often decisive for teams whose main requirement is connecting a wide mix of SaaS apps quickly. |
| Make — visual scenario controls | Make’s visual builder exposes advanced workflow logic—such as branching, iterating over lists, aggregating results, and handling errors—as part of the scenario. | Users can inspect and shape complex data flows directly, rather than hiding much of the logic behind a simple trigger-and-action interface. | A strong fit for processes with many branches, repeated records, or specific error-recovery requirements. |
| Make — Make Grid | Grid provides a visual view of an organization’s automations and how they relate to one another, rather than treating each workflow as an isolated item. | It helps teams understand, monitor, and manage a growing automation estate. | Particularly useful when many workflows are shared across teams and it becomes difficult to track dependencies or operational impact. |
| Make — Make AI Agents | Make brings AI agents into its visual automation environment, letting teams combine agent-driven steps with defined workflow logic. | Teams can use AI for tasks that require interpretation while keeping other steps structured and visible in the workflow. | Suits organizations that want to experiment with agentic automation but still need control over the surrounding process. |
| Make — White Label | White Label allows the automation experience to be offered under another company’s branding—an uncommon capability in general-purpose automation tools. | A software provider can give customers automation functionality as part of its own product experience. | A deciding factor for SaaS companies or platforms that want to embed automation for their customers, rather than only automate internal work. |
These capabilities are differentiators, not necessarily exclusive features. Zapier’s strongest distinction is the combination of app reach with adjacent tools for building simple data-driven workflows; Make stands out for detailed visual control and options for managing or embedding automation at scale.
Most frequently asked questions about Zapier vs Make
Which is easier to use: Make or Zapier?
Reviewers commonly describe Zapier as easier to get started with: its step-by-step workflow builder suits straightforward automations and users with limited technical experience. Make is often praised for its visual, flowchart-like canvas, but reviewers say that branching, routers, and other advanced features can take longer to learn. In short, Zapier tends to feel simpler at first, while Make offers more visual control as workflows grow.
Which platform offers better value for money?
Review feedback often favors Make for cost-conscious users running workflows with many operations, who appreciate its comparatively flexible pricing and visual control over each step. Zapier is frequently valued for convenience and breadth of integrations, though some reviewers say costs can rise as task volume or the number of automations increases. The better value depends on the pricing plan, usage limits, and complexity of your workflows.
Which has more integrations: Make or Zapier?
Reviewers generally point to Zapier’s extensive app catalog as a key advantage, especially when connecting less common business tools. Make also supports a broad range of apps and services, and reviewers appreciate its options for custom API connections and webhooks. If a specific app is essential, check its current integration and available actions on both platforms rather than relying on catalog size alone.
Which is better for complex workflows?
Make is often favored in reviews for workflows that need branching, filters, routers, data transformations, or multiple paths. Its visual scenario builder helps users see how data moves through a process, although reviewers note that intricate scenarios can become harder to manage. Zapier can handle multi-step workflows too, but reviewers more often describe it as a natural fit for simpler, linear automations.
Which platform is better for beginners?
Reviewers often recommend Zapier to beginners who want to connect two apps and automate a familiar task with minimal setup. Make can also be approachable for basic scenarios, but its broader set of controls may feel overwhelming at first. Beginners choosing Make may benefit from starting with a template and adding complexity gradually.
Which is more flexible for customizing automations?
Make reviews commonly highlight flexibility: users can visually configure routes, filters, and data handling, and can use tools such as webhooks for custom connections. Zapier offers customization through its workflow steps and available app actions, but reviewers sometimes find its approach more constrained for unusual or highly branched processes. The practical difference depends on whether your workflow needs that extra control.
Which is more reliable?
Reviewers of both platforms report that automations can save time when they run consistently, while also noting that reliability depends on the connected apps, permissions, APIs, and workflow configuration. Some users mention failed runs or the need to troubleshoot when an app changes or data arrives in an unexpected format. Compare each platform’s run history, error notifications, and retry options for the particular workflow you plan to build.
Which is easier to debug and maintain?
Make reviewers often appreciate being able to inspect a scenario visually and follow data through individual modules, which can help with troubleshooting complex flows. They also note that a large scenario can become difficult to read if it is not organized carefully. Zapier’s simpler, step-based workflows may be easier to scan for basic automations, though reviewers may want more visibility or control when diagnosing complicated data issues.
Which is better for scaling automations as a business grows?
Review feedback suggests that either platform can support growing automation needs, but the trade-offs differ. Make is often considered attractive when teams need more elaborate workflows and want to manage operations carefully. Zapier is frequently favored when teams prioritize quick setup and connecting a wide variety of apps. Reviewers advise modeling expected task or operation volume against plan limits before choosing.
Should I choose Make or Zapier for my use case?
Based on recurring review themes, Zapier is a strong starting point for users who value ease of use, quick setup, and a large selection of app integrations. Make is often the better fit for users who need visual control over complex, branching workflows and are comfortable spending more time learning the builder. Before deciding, test a representative workflow in both products and compare setup effort, error handling, and the cost at your expected usage. These are paraphrased review themes, not verbatim reviewer quotations.
