Head-to-head comparison
Make vs Zapier
Make is the better value for teams that will invest time in the canvas. Zapier is the safer choice for non-technical teams that need broad app coverage and support. The price difference is large; so is the difference in polish.
The short answer
Make usually wins on cost and workflow control. Zapier usually wins on ease, app coverage and organisational trust. A small team with one person who enjoys automation should try Make first; a company rolling automation out to non-technical departments should pay for Zapier.
Choose Make if…
You will build and maintain the workflows yourself, and you want branching, data transformation and lower per-operation costs.
- You want more workflow power per dollar
- You will learn a visual scenario builder
- You need routers, iterators and error handlers
- You can tolerate a denser interface
Choose Zapier if…
Automation is used by several people, app coverage is uncertain, and you value support and a gentler learning curve over the lowest price.
- You need the widest possible app directory
- Non-technical staff will build and maintain workflows
- You want polished onboarding and support
- You need team governance and SSO
What each one costs
| Plan | Make | Zapier |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | $0 — 1,000 credits/month, 2 active scenarios | $0 — 100 tasks/month, two-step Zaps |
| Entry paid plan | Core — $9/mo billed annually, 10,000 credits | Professional — from $19.99/mo billed annually, 750 tasks |
| Mid plan | Pro — $16/mo billed annually, 10,000 credits with advanced features | Professional — $49/mo billed annually for 2,000 tasks |
| Top self-serve plan | Teams — $29/mo billed annually, 10,000 credits with team roles | Team — from $69/mo billed annually for 2,000 tasks and 25 users |
| Billing unit | Credits per module action | Tasks per successful step |
Where they actually differ
| Area | Make | Zapier | What it means in practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| App coverage | 3,500+ apps | 9,000+ apps | Zapier is more likely to have a niche or industry-specific integration. |
| Workflow builder | Visual canvas with routers, iterators and error handlers | Linear step editor with filters, paths and formatter | Make is better for complex branching; Zapier is easier to read at a glance. |
| Cost per operation | Lower; 10,000 credits from $9/mo | Higher; 750 tasks from $19.99/mo | Make is substantially cheaper at comparable volume, but a module action and a task are not identical units. |
| Free tier | Two active scenarios only | 100 tasks, two-step Zaps | Neither free tier is a production service; Zapier's is easier to test with. |
| Learning curve | Moderate to steep | Low to moderate | Non-technical users get further, faster, with Zapier. |
| Error handling | Native error handlers, rollback and break | Autoreplay and custom error settings on paid plans | Make gives more control; Zapier is simpler to configure. |
| Team features | Teams plan with roles and shared templates | 25 users, shared workspaces, SSO and audit logs on Team | Zapier is stronger for governed, multi-user deployments. |
| Support | Technical support by plan; 24/7 on Enterprise | Email support on paid plans; live chat on higher tiers | Zapier's support experience is generally more responsive for small teams. |
Which workflow fits you
Make's pricing advantage is real but easy to overstate. At $9 per month for 10,000 credits, it looks an order of magnitude cheaper than Zapier. Yet a credit is consumed per module action, and a serious scenario can use five to fifteen credits per run, while Zapier's task count also rises with each step. The correct comparison is cost per completed workflow at your actual volume, not cost per thousand credits.
The interface is the second dividing line. Make shows the whole scenario as a canvas: modules, routes, filters and error paths. That is empowering once you understand it, and confusing on day one. Zapier's linear editor hides complexity, which makes simple Zaps approachable but complex ones harder to visualise. Neither is objectively better; they optimise for different users.
App coverage is where Zapier earns its premium. With 9,000+ integrations, the chance that an obscure SaaS tool already has a connector is much higher. Make's 3,500+ apps cover the common business stack, and its HTTP module can reach anything with an API, but that requires more setup and technical confidence.
Think about who will own the automation after launch. If it is one operations person who enjoys the tool, Make's lower cost and deeper control are attractive. If it is a rotating group of marketers with no engineering support, Zapier's guardrails, templates and support reduce the risk of abandoned workflows.
Scenario winners
Make — Core includes 10,000 credits for $9 per month billed annually.
Zapier — 9,000+ integrations versus Make's 3,500+.
Zapier — Simpler editor and more guided onboarding.
Make — Routers, iterators and error handlers on the canvas.
Zapier — SSO, audit logs and 25 users on the Team plan.
Make — Built-in tools for formatting and aggregating between modules.
If neither is the right fit
Frequently asked questions
Is Make cheaper than Zapier?
Yes at comparable volume. Make Core is $9 per month billed annually for 10,000 credits; Zapier Professional starts at $19.99 per month billed annually for 750 tasks. Compare cost per completed workflow, not the raw unit counts.
Does Zapier have more integrations?
Yes. Zapier advertises 9,000+ apps; Make advertises 3,500+. Make can still reach other services through HTTP requests, but that requires more setup.
Which is easier to learn?
Zapier. Its linear editor and templates are designed for non-technical users. Make's canvas is more powerful but assumes you will learn its model.
Can Make handle complex workflows?
Yes. Routers, iterators, aggregators and error handlers make it suitable for multi-branch business processes that would be awkward in Zapier.
Sources and how this page was checked
This page is based on published product information, plan limits and pricing read from the official pages below in November 2026. It is not a hands-on lab test, and we do not claim to have used every feature. Prices and limits change: confirm them on the vendor site before you buy.
How we compared
Both products were assessed on their published plans, feature pages and pricing as read in November 2026. Where a claim depends on plan tier, we say so. We did not run a scored hands-on benchmark, and we do not present vendor marketing as independent testing.
Read our editorial method →