Make vs. Zapier: I Dragged and Zapped Until One Won Me Over

If you’re looking to build no-code or low-code automation, you may have stumbled upon Make and Zapier. Both are popular in our Integration Platform as a Service (iPaaS) category, and while they may seem similar at first glance, they serve slightly different user needs.Choosing the right tool matters because it directly impacts how efficiently your team can automate tasks, scale workflows, and integrate the tools you already rely on. A mismatch in platform capabilities can mean wasted time, higher costs, or unnecessary complexity.

I have compared Make vs. Zapier in detail based on different requirements, like user interface, flexibility, integrations, functionality, and pricing. 

The right choice depends on what you value most. In my analysis, I found Make to be a preferred choice for use cases involving complicated workflows. Zapier is more suitable for use cases that need general-purpose automation. 

Before we explore Make and Zapier, let's quickly review the differences and similarities between the two tools. 

TL;DR: Make is powerful, flexible, and cost-efficient — best for power users, technical teams, and businesses that need to automate complex workflows with branching logic, advanced data handling, and high task volumes. Zapier is simpler, beginner-friendly, and integrates with 7,000+ apps, making it the go-to choice for quick, general-purpose automation without a steep learning curve. Make shines in pricing, scalability, and workflow depth, while Zapier dominates in app coverage, ease of use, and enterprise-ready features. For complex, budget-conscious automation, choose Make. For straightforward, plug-and-play automation with maximum integrations, Zapier leads.

Make vs. Zapier: What’s different? 

Here’s an overview of the key differences between the two software. 

• Integration count and depth: Zapier connects to far more apps — over 7,000 and counting. While Make lists around 2,400, it offers many more actions per app, for example, 84 actions for Xero vs. 25 in Zapier.
• Workflow builder style: Zapier uses a linear, form-based builder with dropdowns and a step-by-step wizard, which makes it great for beginners. Make offers a visual drag-and-drop canvas. In practice, I found Zapier’s interface simpler to start with, while Make’s canvas felt more natural and flexible once I learned it.
• Automation complexity: Make handles complex scenarios with unlimited steps, routes, or branches, and powerful data tools like arrays, JSON parsing, etc. Zapier automation (Zaps) is generally more straightforward: They are easy to build but have fixed limits, e.g., a maximum of 100 steps, and fewer built-in data tools.
• Pricing model: Zapier charges by tasks, where each app action is a task on tiered plans, and now even offers pay-per-task billing. Make charges by operations, i.e., each module run. In my tests, Make’s paid plans give far more operations for the price — for example, $9/mo for 10,000 operations vs. $19.99 for just 750 Zapier tasks. Make can be much cheaper at scale, though the billing math can be confusing.

Make vs. Zapier: What’s similar?

Both Make and Zapier deliver features to create, test, and deploy automations with flexibility. There are a few similarities you can’t miss, for example:

• Visual editors are intuitive, with ample pre-built templates that help new users get started. Neither tool requires code to design basic automation for tasks.
• Free tier options is offered in both plans, with a paid plan for growing usage. Make facilitates 1000 operations while Zapier caters to 100 tasks in the free version.
• User base for both iPaaS software is equally strong and diverse. They cater to a range of users, from solo entrepreneurs to enterprise teams. The two software have a good amount of documentation, tutorials, and communities that users can tap for help. 

Disclaimer: These insights are based on hands-on testing of Make and Zapier as of August 2025. Platform features, pricing, and functionality may evolve over time. This review reflects individual experience and opinions at the time of evaluation and does not represent the official stance or endorsement of G2. For the latest updates, consult Make and Zapier directly.

Make vs. Zapier: How they actually performed in my tests

Let’s talk performance. I tested Make and Zapier to see what they do well and where they fall short. Here’s what I found.

User interface and flexibility

In practice, using each tool highlighted their trade-offs. Zapier’s UI felt intuitive. It walks you through triggers and actions with clear forms. The platform was fairly simple to use and navigate, and Zapier Copilot even offered relevant suggestions to assist.

The platform allows the creation of Zaps with simple suggestions. When I was just starting, I could create a simple “if email then alert me” workflow in minutes without a tutorial. 

On the other hand, Make's UI is a canvas of modules you drag and connect. At first, it felt overwhelming, but soon I appreciated being able to visually lay out multiple branches and see data flow between steps. 

For complex flows, Make’s editor gave me much more control. I could add routers, loops, and data transformations on the fly. I’d say Zapier wins if simplicity is your goal, but Make pulls ahead on flexibility. 

As a power user, I gave a slight edge to Make because of that flexibility and visual clarity.

Winner: Make

App integrations

When I compared integrations, the numbers told one story: Zapier has more apps. In testing, every app I wanted, for example, Salesforce, Mailchimp, Google Analytics, etc., was on Zapier.

A few tools I consistently use didn’t have a Make integration at all, so I had to skip them or use a generic webhook as a workaround. What’s more, Zapier has an AI apps section with 250+ integrations, which Make lacks.

The depth of Make's integrations was impressive. For example, Make lets me pull detailed invoice data from Xero with multiple fields, whereas Zapier only has fundamental invoice triggers.

In the end, if app availability is your priority, Zapier wins since its library is so clearly dominated by size and quick connectors.

Winner: Zapier 

Automation capabilities

To test functionality, I built real workflows of increasing complexity. Simple tasks, like posting form responses to a Slack channel, were easy on both. For more complex needs like data parsing, loops, and multi-branch logic, Make offered better support. For example, I created a scenario in Make that collected data from multiple sources, processed it with filters and array functions, and then uploaded a formatted report, all without writing code. 

Try doing that on a basic Zapier plan, and you hit limits. Zapier capped my steps, and I had to break the process into separate Zaps. 

I also tested conditional branching on either. Make let me splinter one workflow into many routes without limit, while Zapier forced me into its “Paths” feature, which is more rigid. 

Overall, Make handled my complex tests more gracefully with unlimited steps and built-in data tools. Zapier was reliable, but less expressive.

Winner: Make

Pricing

Pricing was an eye-opener. I took two real use cases: a small project with a few hundred tasks per month and a larger project with tens of thousands of tasks. Zapier’s free tier (100 tasks) was limiting for the small project. I needed a paid plan at $19.99/mo to get more tasks. Make offered 1,000 free ops; even its cheapest $9/mo plan gave 10,000 ops. 

For the larger project, Zapier’s $19.99 plan only covered 2,000 tasks, plus overage fees, whereas Make’s $16 or $29 plans covered 10,000 ops each. It gave me far more headroom. I did the math: Zapier was roughly $0.026 per task on their starter plan, while Make was about $0.0009 per operation. However, Zapier’s newer “pay-per-task” billing lets you add extra tasks on demand, simplifying budgeting for fluctuating usage.

In short, Make was far more cost-efficient for my test scenarios. The only caution is that Make’s operations can deplete quickly if you design very big scenarios; I had to pay attention to that. Still, for most users on a budget, Make won the day.

Winner: Make

Here’s a table showing the winner in terms of different iPaaS software features: 

Key insights on Make vs. Zapier from G2 data

I looked into G2’s review data to find strengths and adoption patterns for Make and Zapier. Here’s what stands out: 

Satisfaction ratings

• Make has a decent ease of use (88%), ease of setup (85%), and ease of doing business (94%) ratings.
• Zapier excels in ease of use (89%), ease of setup (88%), and ease of doing business(90%).

Industries represented

• Make dominates marketing and advertising, computer software, IT services, financial services, and accounting.
• Zapier has a strong presence in marketing and advertising, computer software, IT services, the internet, and financial services.

Highest-rated features

• Make excels in pre-built connectors (91%), real-time integration (91%), and flow designer (92%).
• Zapier stands out for flow-designer (90%), pre-built connectors (87%), and data encryption (89%). 

Lowest-rated features

• Make struggles with big data processing (76%), electronic data interchange (EDI) (77%), and resource definition (83%).
• Zapier struggles with application programming interface (API) management (82%), electronic data interchange (EDI) (82%), and managed file transfer (84%).

Frequently asked questions on Make vs. Zapier from G2 data

Q1. Which platform is more suitable for a beginner: Make or Zapier?

Zapier is often better for beginners. Its step-by-step interface and plentiful tutorials make it very approachable. In my trials, I could create simple automations without reading documentation. Make, with its drag-and-drop options, has a steeper learning curve.

Q2. What would be a surefire dealbreaker when choosing between Make or Zapier?

 The biggest dealbreakers are usually integrations and specific feature needs. If one platform doesn’t support an app or action you need, that forces your hand. For example, in my comparison, Zapier had all 7,000+ major apps while Make was missing a few niche tools I use. 

Q3. Which tool is better for AI and new app integrations?

Zapier currently leads here, offering 250+ AI app integrations and Zapier Copilot to recommend workflows. Make supports advanced APIs and custom modules but doesn’t yet have a dedicated AI marketplace.

Q4. Can I migrate workflows from Zapier to Make (or vice versa)?

There’s no one-click migration. However, both platforms support webhooks, APIs, and similar triggers/actions. This means workflows can usually be rebuilt, though complex migrations may take time.

Q5. What industries prefer Make vs. Zapier?

G2 review data shows Make is popular in marketing, IT services, and financial services, where complex workflows are common. Thanks to its broad integrations, Zapier dominates in marketing, SaaS, and internet services.

Make vs. Zapier: The final verdict

Ultimately, Zapier and Make are both solid automation platforms, but they cater to slightly different needs. For someone new to automation or with straightforward tasks, I’d lean toward Zapier. Its interface is simple, and its massive app library means you’ll almost certainly find any tool you need. 

I'd recommend Make if you have complex workflows, technical requirements like handling data arrays or calling APIs, or a tight budget at scale. In my tests, its power-user features and lower cost per operation were decisive.

Finally, your decision will be based on what matters most to you. If you need quick and easy automation and broad compatibility, go with Zapier. Try Make if you need deep customization and want to squeeze the most out of your dollar. Both tools are robust, so you’ll be able to automate tasks either way. Pick the one that matches your priorities.

Explore other Zapier alternatives and Make alternatives for your iPaaS needs.

This article was originally published in April 2025 and has been updated with new information.