Choosing Software

Pick Zapier for the fastest setup on a small number of simple, linear automations, when you're not adding a second builder anytime soon. Pick Make if more than one person needs to touch your automations, or your workflows involve branching, loops, or nested data a straight line can't express cleanly. For the broader framework first, see how to choose workflow automation software.

Most comparisons of these two tools lead with feature checklists: app count, AI steps, templates. That's the wrong starting point. The decision that plays out inside most teams is a pricing-unit decision (what you're billed for) stacked on a seat decision (who's allowed to build). Get those two right and the feature gap mostly sorts itself out. This guide walks through both, plus a worked cost example at a realistic volume.

What Zapier is vs what Make is

Zapier is a no-code automation platform built around Zaps: a trigger in one app followed by a linear sequence of action steps in other apps. It bills by the task, where one task equals one action step that runs successfully; failed actions and triggers don't count. Zapier's biggest strength is breadth and speed: connect two apps, pick a trigger and an action, and you're running in minutes, no canvas or branching diagram required.

Make (formerly Integromat) is a visual automation platform built around scenarios: a canvas where you drag modules and connect them with lines you can see and follow. It bills by the credit, where each module execution, including filters and routers, consumes credits from your monthly pool. Make's strength is handling shapes that don't fit in a straight line: branching paths, loops over arrays, and conditional logic you can trace visually instead of guessing at from a settings panel.

Dimension	Zapier	Make
Pricing unit	Task (one successful action step)	Credit (one module execution, including filters and routers)
Builder style	Linear step list	Visual canvas with branches and loops
Users on Free and entry paid tier	1 seat	Unlimited
Cheapest multi-seat plan	Team, $69/mo billed annually, 25 seats	Not applicable, every plan is already unlimited
AI automation billing	Separate product (Zapier Agents), metered on its own	Bundled into the same credit pool as everything else
Best natural fit	Fast, simple, mostly linear automations	Branching, looping, or multi-person automation work

Key facts: Zapier vs Make

Zapier bills per task, one successful action step; triggers and failed actions never count. Make bills per credit, and unlike Zapier, filters and routers count as executions too (Zapier pricing, Make pricing).

Zapier gives you exactly 1 user seat on Free and on Professional. You need Team, $69/month billed annually, before a second person can own or edit a workflow (Zapier pricing).

Make includes unlimited users on every plan, Free included, with no seat charge at any tier (Make pricing).

Zapier Agents is billed separately from core Zaps, from about $33.33/month billed annually for 1,500 activities. Make folds its AI modules into the same credit pool you already pay for (Zapier pricing).

Head to head on the things that decide it

Both tools connect apps and move data well. Where they diverge is who's allowed to build, what a complex workflow costs to run, and how painful a non-linear shape is in each one.

Area	Zapier	Make
Pricing unit	Per task, one successful action step	Per credit, one module execution including filters and routers
Free plan	100 tasks/month, 1 seat, two-step Zaps only	1,000 credits/month, unlimited seats, 15-minute minimum interval
Entry paid plan	Professional, $19.99/mo billed annually, 750 tasks, 1 seat	Core, $9/mo billed monthly, 10,000 credits, unlimited seats, 1-minute interval
Multi-seat access	Only on Team ($69/mo billed annually, 25 seats) and Enterprise	Every plan, including Free, already includes unlimited seats
Branching logic	Paths, an add-on inside a single Zap, one level of routing	Router module, native, unlimited branches, nested within a scenario
Looping over arrays	Requires a premium Looping app or a Code step	Iterator module, native, built for nested arrays
Error handling	Zap-level retry and a failure notification, not branch-specific	Per-module error handler routes, configurable per step
AI / agent billing	Zapier Agents, separate meter, from about $33.33/mo annually	AI modules draw from the same credit pool as everything else
Minimum run interval	Tied to plan tier, not separately published as an interval	15 minutes on Free, 1 minute on every paid tier
Best natural fit	Simple, linear, mostly single-owner automations	Multi-person teams, or workflows with branches, loops, or nested data

The pattern is consistent: Zapier optimizes for one person moving fast on a straight line of steps, and starts charging for collaboration the moment a second person needs to touch that line. Make optimizes for the opposite: any number of people can be in the account from day one, but every filter or router you add to keep the workflow correct also adds to your credit bill.

Where the workflow shape actually breaks one tool and not the other

Pricing gets the headlines, but workflow shape determines whether you're fighting the tool. Three shapes come up constantly and land very differently in each platform.

Workflow shape	In Zapier	In Make
Route a lead three different ways by region	Paths add-on inside one Zap, one level deep, gets unwieldy past a handful of branches	Router module, drag in as many branches as you need, nest a router inside a branch if you have to
Loop through a list of line items in a webhook payload	Needs a paid Looping by Zapier app, or a Code step to flatten the array yourself	Iterator module is native and built for exactly this, pairs with an Array Aggregator to rebuild the list after
Retry a failed step on just one branch without killing the whole run	Not really possible; Zap-level retry restarts the whole Zap, not one branch	Native per-module error handler route, attach a retry or a fallback to the exact module that failed

None of this makes Zapier worse. A workflow that's really just "new form submission creates a CRM record" needs no canvas at all. The mismatch only bites once you need a router, a loop, or branch-specific error handling, and that's when Make's canvas stops being a nice-to-have.

Pricing compared

Pricing changes more often than most buyers check, so here's what each vendor's pricing page states today.

Zapier pricing:

Plan	Billed annually (per month)	Billed monthly	Tasks included	Seats
Free	$0	$0	100 tasks/mo	1
Professional	$19.99	$29.99	750 tasks/mo	1
Professional (2,000-task tier)	$49.00	$73.50	2,000 tasks/mo	1
Team	$69.00	$103.50	2,000 tasks/mo	25
Enterprise	Custom, sales only	Custom	Custom	Custom

Free is capped to two-step Zaps; Professional and above unlock multi-step Zaps. Price scales with the task tier you select, up to a published ceiling of 1,000,000 tasks/month at $2,199/month billed annually. Zapier Agents and Zapier Chatbots are billed separately from every tier above: roughly $33.33/month billed annually for 1,500 agent activities, and roughly $13.33/month for about 5 chatbots.

Make pricing:

Plan	Billed monthly	Credits included	Minimum run interval	Users
Free	$0	1,000 credits/mo	15 minutes	Unlimited
Core	$9	10,000 credits/mo	1 minute	Unlimited
Pro	$16	10,000 credits/mo	1 minute	Unlimited
Teams	$29	10,000 credits/mo	1 minute	Unlimited
Enterprise	Custom	Custom	1 minute	Unlimited

Make's pricing page presents these as "Pay monthly" prices and advertises annual billing as a way to "save 15% or more," without printing the annual per-month figures. Treat annual as cheaper by that advertised margin rather than computing a number the vendor hasn't published. One structural note worth repeating: Make now prices in credits, not "operations." Some older writeups still quote Make at "~$10.59/mo" under an operations model; that figure and unit don't appear on Make's pricing page as of this writing.

Pro and Teams cost more than Core for the same 10,000 credits because they add features, not more usage: Pro adds full-text search and priority execution, Teams adds team roles and shared scenario folders. If you only need the credit volume, Core covers it regardless of headcount.

Worked example: a 5-step workflow running 400 times a month

Numbers make the seat and unit differences concrete. Take a workflow with a trigger plus five action steps: a form submission creates a CRM record, enriches it, checks it against a dedupe list, posts a Slack alert, and updates a tracking sheet. Run that 400 times a month.

Metric	Zapier	Make
Billable unit per run	5 tasks (action steps only, trigger doesn't count)	Roughly 6 to 7 module executions per run if you add a router or filter for dedupe logic
Monthly volume	2,000 tasks	Roughly 2,400 to 2,800 credits
Plan required	Team, $69/mo billed annually, if more than one person owns the Zap; Professional (2,000-task tier), $49/mo billed annually, if it stays single-owner	Core, $9/mo billed monthly, comfortably inside the 10,000-credit allowance either way
Seats included at that price	25 (Team) or 1 (Professional)	Unlimited, no extra charge

Credit-to-task isn't a clean 1:1 swap: Make counts filters and routers as billable executions the same way it counts a CRM write, while Zapier bills only the action steps, never the trigger. That's why the same five-step logic lands anywhere from 2,400 to 2,800 Make credits. But the headline holds: at this volume, Zapier's 2,000-task requirement sits right at the boundary between a $49/month single-seat plan and a $69/month 25-seat plan, while Make's Core plan absorbs the same workload for $9/month with no seat question at all. The seat decision, not the task-versus-credit math, usually moves the bill the most.

AI automation: a separate bill on one side, not the other

If AI-driven automation is part of why you're evaluating either tool, the billing structure differs as much as it does for regular workflows.

	Zapier	Make
AI billing model	Separate product, metered independently from core Zap tasks	AI modules draw from the same credit pool as every other module
Entry AI price	Zapier Agents, about $33.33/month billed annually, 1,500 activities	No separate line item, AI usage is priced the same as any other module run
Chatbots	Separate product, about $13.33/month for roughly 5 bots	Not a separate product; build a chatbot-style scenario using the same credit pool
Budgeting impact	Two line items: your core Zap plan plus your Agents/Chatbots plan	One line item, sized by total credit volume across every workflow, AI included

A buyer pricing out "AI automation" on Zapier is really pricing two products: the Zap plan running the rest of the stack, plus Agents or Chatbots on top. Make avoids that split, though a heavy AI workflow then eats into the same credit pool your regular automations depend on.

When Zapier is the better choice

Zapier tends to win when speed and simplicity matter more than seat flexibility or branching depth.

You're the only person who will ever touch the automation. Zapier's 1-seat limit on Free and Professional never becomes a real constraint if nobody else needs to log in and edit a Zap.
Your workflows are genuinely linear. A single trigger followed by a short list of actions, with no branching, no loops, and no per-step retry logic, is what Zapier's step-based builder was designed for.
You need something running in the next 20 minutes. Zapier's connector setup and trigger-action pairing is the fastest path to a working automation in this category.
You want the widest range of niche app connectors. Zapier's catalog is the deepest for long-tail, less common apps smaller teams still rely on.
You're deciding between automation platforms broadly first. Best no-code automation tools covers the connector-first side of the category before you narrow to one vendor.

If your automations stay simple and single-owner, Zapier's speed usually outweighs anything Make's canvas offers.

When Make is the better choice

Make tends to win once more than one person needs access, or the workflow stops being a straight line.

More than one person needs to build or own automations. Every Make plan, including Free, already includes unlimited users, so adding a teammate never forces a plan upgrade the way it does on Zapier.
Your workflows branch, loop, or need per-step error handling. Router, Iterator, and per-module error handler routes are native to Make's canvas, not add-ons or workarounds.
You're processing nested data, like arrays inside a webhook payload. Make's Iterator and Array Aggregator modules were built for exactly this; Zapier needs a paid add-on or a Code step for the same job.
Cost predictability across a growing team matters more than per-unit price. Because seats are free on every Make tier, your bill scales with usage alone, not headcount.
You're weighing automation software against a broader operations decision first. Best AI automation tools and how to choose automation software for small business cover adjacent decisions worth making alongside this one.

If your team is growing past one automation owner, or your workflows need branches and loops, Make absorbs both without the seat tax Zapier charges for the same growth.

How to choose: a decision framework

Match your situation below. If you land in more than one row, weigh which limit costs more: a seat charge or a workflow you have to fight to build.

If your situation is...	Pick...	Reason
Solo builder, simple linear workflows	Zapier	The 1-seat limit never bites, and setup speed is the fastest in the category
More than one person needs to build or edit automations	Make	Unlimited users on every plan, including Free, avoids the seat upgrade entirely
Workflows need branching, loops, or nested array handling	Make	Router, Iterator, and per-module error handling are native, not workarounds
You need the widest catalog of niche app connectors	Zapier	Deepest long-tail connector library in the category
Budgeting for AI automation and want one line item, not two	Make	AI modules share the same credit pool; Zapier Agents is a separate product and bill
Team is growing and you don't want the bill to scale with headcount	Make	Seats are free at every tier, so cost scales with usage, not people
Undecided and want a neutral scoring method first	Either, scored on the same checklist	SaaS vendor evaluation scorecard gives you weighted criteria instead of a gut call

For a full walkthrough of the broader category, how to choose workflow automation software is the right starting point.

Frequently asked questions

Is Zapier or Make cheaper?

It depends on seat count and workflow shape, not sticker price alone. At low volume with one builder, Zapier Professional and Make Core land in a similar range. The moment a second person needs to own or edit workflows, Zapier forces you onto its $69/month Team plan for the same task volume, while Make's price doesn't move, since every tier already includes unlimited users.

Can I migrate my Zaps to Make, or the other way, without rebuilding everything?

No platform offers a clean, automatic import from the other. Expect to rebuild each workflow manually: recreate the trigger, rebuild each step or module, and reconnect your app credentials. Budget real testing time before cutover, especially for any Zap that used Paths, since that logic maps to Make's Router but isn't a drag-and-drop conversion.

Does Make's credit pricing mean filters cost the same as a real action?

Yes. Make counts every module execution, filters and routers included, against your credit pool the same way it counts a step that writes data somewhere. Zapier bills only successful action steps, and a filter that stops a Zap doesn't count as a task. That's part of why a unit-for-unit comparison between tasks and credits doesn't hold up cleanly.

Do I need Zapier Agents or Make's AI modules for basic automation?

No. Both companies sell their core products, Zaps and scenarios, independent of any AI layer. Zapier Agents is a separate product with its own bill, so skipping it costs nothing on your regular Zap plan. Make's AI modules only draw credits when a scenario actually uses one.

Which tool handles a workflow that needs to retry only one failed step, not the whole thing?

Make. Its per-module error handler routes let you attach a retry, a fallback path, or a notification to the exact module that failed, without restarting the entire scenario. Zapier's retry logic operates at the Zap level, so recovery options are more limited than routing around just the broken step.

Should I run a real trial of both before deciding?

Yes, especially if your workflows involve branching or nested data, since that's where the two diverge most in practice. How to run a software trial covers structuring a side-by-side test with your own real trigger data, not a demo scenario, so you're comparing how each tool handles your actual workflow.

The seat count decides this before the feature list does

For most teams, the honest answer to Zapier vs Make isn't a feature comparison, it's a headcount question. If you're the only person who will ever build or edit an automation and your workflows stay linear, Zapier's speed and connector breadth are hard to beat. The moment a second person needs access, or a workflow needs a branch, a loop, or step-specific error handling, Make's unlimited-seat, visual-canvas model starts paying for itself, often at a lower total bill than the equivalent Zapier setup.

Neither platform locks you in permanently. Teams move between them in both directions, usually triggered by a headcount change or a workflow that outgrew a straight line of steps. Pick the one that fits your team size and workflow shape today, and revisit if either changes materially. Before you commit, map every system the automation needs to touch using the software integration requirements checklist, and if total cost across seats, credits, and AI add-ons matters to your budget owner, the software total cost of ownership guide walks through modeling that beyond the sticker price.

About the author

Calvin D.

Head of Enterprise Solutions

Calvin D. is Head of Enterprise Solutions at Rework, with 5+ years and 40+ enterprise engagements spanning 20 to 500+ user deployments. Calvin helps Heads of Operations, IT Directors, and VPs connect CRM, workflow automation, and data into one stack that actually fits together. Readers get field-tested architecture decisions they can apply as their teams scale.

View full profile LinkedIn