Zapier vs. Make comparison: Which is best? [2026]

"I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes," said author Joanna Maciejewska in a viral post. It's a common anti-AI objection. Why are we automating away things that are delightful, enriching, and human, while keeping the drudgery for ourselves? 

Fortunately, with the advent of agents, we're starting to see AI use cases that really do knock out drudgery, like compliance review and help desk management. (I'd rather do dishes than either of those, thank you very much.) To enable this kind of work, the role of platforms like Zapier and Make is evolving: increasingly, the end goal is to describe a task or project to an agent (or team of agents) and let them securely access all the apps necessary to get the work done. 

Zapier and Make offer similar building blocks for this process on paper, with thousands of integrations and tools like MCP that enable secure agentic access. But the way each platform works in practice is meaningfully different. 

Make is built for technical teams that want deep control over complex, branching automations, and are willing to pre-build the automations they need before calling them with agents. Zapier is an AI orchestration platform that lets agents act on 9,000+ connected apps directly through chatbots, coding tools, or terminals—without designing workflows in advance.

Choosing between them comes down to how directly you want agents acting on your apps, how much you want your team designing that access ahead of time, and how technical your team is. Here's a full comparison to help you decide.

Table of contents:

• Make vs. Zapier at a glance

• Zapier is built for broad enterprise adoption; Make caters to technical specialists

• Zapier's total cost of ownership is lower than Make's

• Zapier gives your AI agents safe, governed access to your apps

• Zapier integrates with 3x more apps than Make

• Zapier has more proven ability to scale

• Which platform is right for your enterprise?

• Zapier vs. Make FAQ

Make vs. Zapier at a glance

Here's a quick summary, but keep reading for more details.

Zapier is built for broad enterprise adoption; Make caters to technical specialists

Zapier has always been straightforward to use, even for non-technical employees. With Zapier Copilot, it's even easier: just tell Zapier what you want to automate, and the rest happens automatically.

Why does accessibility matter? It means non-technical users can build sophisticated automations in minutes, from marketing teams automating lead nurturing to sales teams connecting CRM data across multiple systems.

"I can get someone who's only been here for a few weeks to set up an automation in Zapier, that's huge," says Korey Marciniak, Senior Manager of Customer Support Strategy and Operations at Okta. "Zapier makes it to where I can just go in and change one small thing when something changes versus opening a ticket and waiting for engineering support. "

Make's visual builder, while powerful, comes with a steeper learning curve. Beginners often struggle, and it's not uncommon to see sentiments like "I want to learn Make.com but it's all so overwhelming." Before attempting to build a custom scenario, Make's support team suggests beginners should complete the ~19 hours of coursework in Make Academy—or just hire an expensive consultant to do it. Maia, Make's AI cobuilder, is still in early access; until it launches, you can build from scratch or from a template, but there's no way to build anything conversationally like you can with Zapier Copilot. According to the Make team, Maia is coming soon, but the fact that it's taken this long is evidence that Make is behind the curve on AI building.

Make was historically the "power user" favorite thanks to unlimited Routers, robust Iterators, and powerful Aggregators for data merging. Its HTTP module is flexible for calling APIs directly, and its visual map makes complex multi-branch logic easy to see at a glance.

But Zapier has invested heavily in closing that gap, adding Looping, improved Paths, Sub-Zaps, and Custom Actions (with AI-assisted API setup), plus the ability to create complex custom-coded automations using Code by Zapier. With agentic capabilities built in, you can add AI anywhere into your workflows to create dynamic systems that adapt to your workflow. And using Zapier Canvas, you can map out entire business processes using a visual builder.

Teams building custom AI workflows sometimes also evaluate LangChain, which is a code-first framework for stitching together LLMs and tools. Zapier delivers many of the same benefits without requiring engineering time to stand up and maintain.

With Zapier, power users can still tap advanced features—without alienating the marketing manager or HR lead who needs to adjust a workflow.

Zapier's total cost of ownership is lower than Make's

Make's pricing looks attractive in head-to-head plan comparisons, offering thousands of credits for a low monthly rate. Despite this lower headline rate, you might not actually be saving money.

Here's why:

• Every step in your Make workflows counts against your budget, including internal logic, polling triggers, and even failed runs.

• Testing your workflows also consumes credits.

• Most actions use one credit, but some actions use more based on file size, run time, or AI usage.

As a consequence, tracking, diagnosing, and optimizing credit usage imposes a hidden cost. Make's support forum is full of users trying to figure out why their workflows are using more credits than expected, and discussing workaround strategies (like using external cron jobs) to avoid burning through credits unnecessarily.

By contrast, Zapier's task-based model is transparent and easy to understand. You're charged only for "work" actions, with unlimited use of platform features like filtering, formatting, looping, and error handling.

Let's look at an example. A Make workflow that polls an API every 5 minutes burns 20 credits per hour whether or not it finds new data; the same workflow in Zapier could run on a webhook trigger (free) and filter (free), using zero tasks until there's work to do.

From an enterprise perspective, Zapier's model is easier to forecast for budgeting and procurement. It also requires less overhead: you don't need consultants to build and maintain complex workflows, and you won't burden your technical staff with cost management tasks (like optimizing workflows to use fewer credits). And if you ever go over your Zapier task limit, you have the option to pay for a few more tasks incrementally using pay-per-task billing rather than upgrading your plan.

Zapier gives your AI agents safe, governed access to your apps

Zapier gives you multiple tools for taking agentic action. You can build what you need with:

• Zapier's visual workflow builder

• A chatbot (like ChatGPT or Claude) using Zapier MCP

• A code editor (like Cursor or Windsurf) using the Zapier SDK

• A terminal using the CLI

Want your agent to send a message to your team's Slack channel, then log it in Google Sheets? Just describe what you need, and Zapier connects the app endpoints securely and automatically. Whether you use a chat app, a code editor, your terminal, or the Zapier web app, all activities flow through the same governed connections, and your IT department gets full visibility over everything that's happening.

Make offers an MCP too, but it's less flexible. Unlike Zapier—which lets you take agentic action freely across 9,000+ connected apps—with Make you need to design and build your automation first, then call it in an agent.

Zapier's approach leaves far more agentic activity under the umbrella of IT observability. With 9,000+ app connections and the ability to build the agents you need instantly (rather than having to design workflows first), there's no incentive for users to hack together their own shadow AI solution with API calls and ungoverned credentials.

Zapier also has a fuller suite of governance controls for IT. For example, you can restrict certain apps to admins only, decide which domains people can log in with, require approval before publishing sensitive automations, and get notified whenever someone shares a connection more broadly than they should. You can also see every Zap, connection, and user in your business in the Admin Center, along with organization-wide activity.

Make's most interesting governance feature is Grid, which automatically builds a live dependency map of every scenario, connection, and agent in your organization. At a glance, you get a visual sense of how everything connects and where your data is flowing.

But even taking Grid into account, you're getting less governance than you would with Zapier. You can't maintain app allowlists or blocklists or require workflow approvals. And IT teams have fewer guardrails available: they can't restrict builders to pre-approved apps or define action-level permissions, like allowing the marketing team to read HubSpot records but not overwrite anything.

Zapier integrates with about 3x more apps than Make

Zapier connects to 9,000+ apps, while Make integrates with around 3,500.

If you're connecting the usual suspects—like Salesforce, Slack, or Google Sheets—you'll find what you need on either app. But keep in mind that a large chunk of Make's integrations—including popular apps like Kajabi, AirOps, and Lemon Squeezy—are built and maintained by community members or independent developers, making them less reliable for business-critical workflows. (Confusingly, there are often rival community-built connectors for the same app, with no way to know which one will be more reliable.)

And if you're searching for less prominent apps on Make, it doesn't take long before you start getting "Sorry, app not found" messages. Business intelligence tools like Fullstory, Microsoft Clarity, and Crazy Egg are all missing, for example.

If your organization only relies on a handful of apps, Zapier's edge on integrations might not have a practical impact for you. But if you need to connect with industry-specific platforms or niche apps, Zapier makes it much more likely you'll find what you need. And it means you'll have fewer employees finding ungoverned workarounds.

Zapier has more proven ability to scale

Zapier helps fast-growing teams like ClickUp, Remote, and Miro scale automation across their organizations, reduce hiring costs, and free up thousands of hours of employee time each year. 3.4 million companies use Zapier. Make has around a tenth as many customers and fewer enterprise users, which means it simply hasn't been stress-tested at the same scale.

Here's how Zapier is designed for enterprise workflows:

• Outage detection: Zapier keeps your data safe if one of your connected apps has downtime.

• Intelligent throttling: Never lose data, even when traffic spikes.

• API change management: When APIs update, Zapier manages those changes automatically so your workflows stay intact.

• Data checkpoints: Built-in guardrails ensure automations finish what they start.

• Horizontal scalability: Zapier can manage spikes in workflow volume without slowing down.

As you scale, Zapier's ease of use is another asset. Because Zapier's automations require less technical knowledge, it's faster to roll them out across your organization and less resource-intensive to maintain them. In Make, deeply nested scenarios can be harder to debug or modify. Zapier's straightforward design can translate to lower ongoing maintenance costs and fewer specialized personnel needed to manage automations.

Make vs. Zapier: Which platform is right for your enterprise?

Some technical automation teams prefer Make for the depth it offers on complex branching logic, and for simple workflows, Make can occasionally offer cost savings. But for most businesses, Zapier's governed AI layer, authenticated access to 9,000+ apps, and full AI orchestration platform offer more value.

Choose Zapier if:

• You want one governed layer that provides the same authenticated connections no matter where your team builds.

• You need your agents to take flexible action across 9,000+ apps, not just the workflows IT has already approved.

• You're looking for predictable, transparent pricing.

• You want to scale quickly by empowering non-technical teams to build workflows and agents on their own.

Choose Make if:

• You have a dedicated technical automation team comfortable with routers, iterators, and modules.

• You have the resources to actively monitor and optimize credit usage.

• You need deep module control for a narrow set of systems.

• Visual, drag-and-drop mapping is your top priority.

If you want to see how Zapier could fit into your AI strategy, connect with our enterprise team for a tailored consultation and demo. Or start building right now.

Zapier vs. Make FAQ

Which is the best value, Zapier vs. Make?

Zapier is typically more cost-effective over time because it charges only for completed work actions, making costs easier to predict and control. Make's credit-based model can look cheaper upfront, but since every step—including triggers, filters, polling, and errors—uses credits, costs can increase quickly as workflows grow and require more maintenance. Zapier's massive integration library and AI features add even more value.

Which platform is easier to scale across an organization?

Zapier is generally easier to scale because it's accessible to more teams and requires less ongoing maintenance. Organizations can roll out automation to marketing, sales, and HR without relying heavily on IT. Make can scale too, but typically needs dedicated specialists to build, optimize, and manage workflows as complexity grows.

Do Zapier and Make support enterprise needs like security and governance?

Both platforms offer enterprise-grade security features and GDPR compliance, though their certifications differ. Zapier stands out with more built-in governance features—like centralized admin controls, audit logs, managed permissions, and AI Guardrails by Zapier—making it easier for IT teams to maintain oversight as automation expands across departments. 

Zapier MCP—which lets AI models like Claude and ChatGPT access your apps directly—is GA and SOC 2 Type II certified, with the same centralized controls IT teams use for the rest of the platform. Make offers its own MCP server, governed by the same SOC 2 Type II controls as the rest of the platform, but it relies on pre-built automations.

Is Make.com open source?

No. Make.com is a closed-source SaaS product, as is Zapier. Teams usually search for open-source automation because they want three things: control over their data, predictable costs, and audit compliance. Zapier delivers all three through a managed platform: SOC 2 Type II and GDPR are built in, pricing is task-based and transparent, and you keep full ownership of the workflows you build. For most teams, running an open-source automation stack yourself ends up more expensive than a managed platform once engineering time, hosting, and ongoing maintenance are factored in.

Related reading:

• Zapier vs. n8n: Which is best for your organization?

• The best business automation software

• The best Make alternatives

• n8n vs. Make: Which is best?

This article was originally published in September 2025. The most recent update was in June 2026.