I have a particular brand of curiosity that kicks in the moment I find out another tool does roughly what the one I'm using does, possibly for less money, possibly with more features. It's a fun and emotionally healthy way to spend an afternoon—hunched over my laptop like a gargoyle trying to figure out whether I'm about to save money or accidentally volunteer myself for a part-time job maintaining workflows.
That's usually the rabbit hole Make sends people down.
On paper, it sounds compelling: thousands of integrations, a visual builder, granular data mapping, routers, filters, schedulers, custom API options, and all the little knobs and switches that make a certain kind of operator's heart flutter.
In this guide, I'll break down what Make's integration library actually covers, where the platform pulls its weight, where it slows things down, and when Zapier is the better path for AI automation.
Table of contents:
What is Make?
Make is a visual, platform that lets you build workflows using a drag-and-drop interface. As a flexible data integration tool, you can connect apps, transform data, and automate multi-step processes using a visual builder that maps out how information moves between systems.
Originally called Integromat—a name that sounded less like a SaaS platform and more like something you bought at PetSmart to de-shed an anxious golden retriever—it rebranded to Make in 2022, and since then, it's leaned harder into and more advanced scenario design.
Make tends to attract teams that want detailed control over every step of how data moves between tools, and who don't mind spending extra time configuring routers, filters, and error handlers to get there. If your idea of a good Tuesday is auditing module-level operation counts, you'll feel right at home.
How many integrations does Make have?
Make currently offers 3,000+ integrations, spanning categories like , eCommerce, productivity, , AI, and developer tools. This includes:
Pre-built (native) integrations: Make provides thousands of ready-to-use integrations for big-name business apps. Popular examples include: Google Gemini, Airtable, HubSpot CRM, Slack, Shopify, Notion, Stripe, and NetSuite.
Webhook integrations: enable real-time triggers from external apps, helping your workflows run instantly when an event occurs.
Custom : Make allows you to connect apps that aren't in its directory using HTTP modules and direct API calls. This makes it possible to build integrations for internal tools, niche SaaS products, or systems with limited native support.
Built-in and universal modules: The platform includes tools for routing logic, filtering data, scheduling workflows, and transforming information between steps.
I'll give credit where it's due: 3,000+ integrations is a solid library. But while we're counting, Zapier supports 9,000+ apps, which is three times the number of Make integrations. And Zapier also supports webhooks, custom integrations, and built-in and universal modules.
Make vs. Zapier integrations
Make and Zapier are in the same business of and —both with AI built in—but they approach integrations from different angles. Make optimizes for visual flexibility and granular control. Zapier optimizes for breadth, predictability, and speed to a working automation—without sacrificing the ability to build sophisticated workflows.
Here's how the two compare at a glance:
Make | Zapier | |
|---|---|---|
Integration count | 3,000+ apps | 9,000+ apps |
App coverage | Solid coverage of mainstream apps | Strong long-tail and niche app support |
Ease of use | Steeper learning curve | Beginner-friendly |
Pricing | Free plan available; paid plans from $12/month | Free plan available; paid plans from $19.99/month |
Time to value | Often needs more upfront configuration | Quick setup |
Automation model | Visual, highly customizable | Structured, predictable, AI-native |
Integration count
Zapier supports 9,000+ app integrations to Make's 3,000+. Both tools can look pretty similar when you're connecting Slack to Google Sheets, but the gap shows up fast when you're trying to connect the oddball tools that make up your real business—a newer ATS, an industry-specific platform, a regional CRM, or the database your ops lead has strong opinions about.
A larger catalog means you're more likely to find the actual tool you use, with the actual trigger or action you need, already waiting for you. It's what determines whether you can use a native integration and be done in 15 minutes, or whether you end up elbows-deep in , convincing yourself this is a good learning opportunity.
Ease of use
Zapier's trigger-and-action model is famously approachable—pick the event that kicks off the workflow, pick what happens next, test it, and turn it on. Non-technical teammates can ship working automations without touching APIs or configuring complex routing logic. And that matters because most companies do not have a dedicated workflow sicko on staff whose only job is to lovingly maintain the automation labyrinth.
Make offers a highly with advanced logic paths, but the flexibility comes with a learning curve. It's notable enough that Make's own support team has suggested users complete Make Academy training before building production workflows. That's not a knock—some teams want that control badly enough that the training is worth it. But for those who want quick implementation without ongoing maintenance, Zapier provides a more approachable starting point—without losing the ability to scale up to complex workflows.
Pricing
Both platforms have free plans, which is useful. Nobody should have to put a tool on the company card before they've even confirmed it can do the thing they need.
Where the real difference kicks in is usage-based pricing.
starts at $12/month (billed annually) and runs on an operations model. That means every module action—triggers, filters, routers, iterators, polling checks—counts as one operation. Even when nothing meaningful happens, the meter can still move. This is one of those pricing models that looks cheap when you're staring at the sticker, especially for simple two-step scenarios. But multi-step workflows can chew through operations fast, particularly when automations involve filters, routers, or repeated checks.
start at $19.99/month (billed annually) and use task-based pricing tied to completed automation outcomes. like Filters, Paths, and Formatter steps don't count toward your task total. Neither do triggers. This can make usage easier to predict as workflows scale, since a single Zap can include multiple steps without requiring you to track each operation individually.
Time to value
Because Zapier offers more native integrations and a more structured setup, teams usually spend less time building custom connections or troubleshooting unsupported apps. That faster setup makes it easier to across a team without dedicating engineering time to keeping integrations running.
Make can deliver excellent results, but production-ready workflows often need more upfront configuration. That extra setup time can slow momentum, which is awkward when the whole point of automation was to remove friction—not assign you a surprise side quest involving HTTP modules.
Automation model
Both platforms have moved into AI-native territory, but the gap becomes clear when you look at how agents actually connect to tools.
Make now has its own MCP server, meaning AI agents can invoke Make scenarios as tools. That's an improvement, but you still have to build and maintain those scenarios yourself; this puts you back in familiar Make territory: configuring workflows from a 3,000-app catalog before your agent can do anything with them.
skips the setup overhead. Agents get direct access to a pre-built library of 9,000+ apps, without you having to build a single scenario or manage credentials. And for teams doing development in code editors or the terminal, and CLI offer interfaces that don't have a Make equivalent, giving developers more ways to build without switching contexts.
Zapier or Make: Which one should you choose?
This is usually the part where comparison articles retreat into the safety of "it depends," and assure you that both tools are equally valid choices for your unique situation. Which is technically true in the same way weather apps are technically accurate when they say "conditions may vary."
Here's the simpler version:
Choose Make if you like designing complex scenarios visually, and have the time and appetite to configure and maintain more detailed workflows.
Choose Zapier if you want automations up and running faster, across more apps, with less maintenance overhead and more predictable pricing.
The dividing line is most often which one gets useful work out of the way faster, with fewer surprises waiting for you later. And for most teams, that answer is . But yes, this is the Zapier blog, so get a second opinion from .
Related reading:
