Comparison
Make vs Zapier
A side-by-side look at Make (Visual Automation) and Zapier (Simple Integration) — pricing, features, ideal users and our verdict.
| Make | Zapier | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Visual Automation | Simple Integration |
| Best for | Multi-app visual integrations | Quick no-code app connections |
| Pricing | Free 1,000 ops/mo; Core from $9/mo | Free 100 tasks/mo; Pro from $19.99/mo |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Rating | 4.6 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 |
| Action | Visit Make → | Visit Zapier → |
Make
★★★★½4.6A visual, scenario-based automation platform (formerly Integromat) with a powerful drag-and-drop builder, routers and 1,800+ app connectors. Strong balance of power and accessibility.
Pros
- ✓ Generous free tier
- ✓ Visual router & branching logic
- ✓ Cheaper per-op than Zapier
Cons
- ✕ Operations model can get pricey at scale
- ✕ Debugging complex scenarios is fiddly
Zapier
★★★★½4.5The most established no-code automation tool with 7,000+ integrations. Optimised for simple, linear automations that non-technical teams can build in minutes.
Pros
- ✓ Largest app ecosystem
- ✓ Easiest for non-technical users
- ✓ Reliable & well-documented
Cons
- ✕ Most expensive per-task at scale
- ✕ Limited complex logic
Our verdict
For most teams, Make edges ahead thanks to its strength in multi-app visual integrations. That said, Zapier is the better pick if your priority is quick no-code app connections — choose based on the job you need done, not the brand.
Frequently asked questions
Is Make cheaper than Zapier?
On entry pricing, Make is generally the cheaper option (Free 1,000 ops/mo; Core from $9/mo) versus Zapier (Free 100 tasks/mo; Pro from $19.99/mo). Final cost depends on your usage volume, so check how each tool meters operations or seats.
Do I need coding skills for Make or Zapier?
Neither Make nor Zapier requires coding for everyday use — both are built for no-code or low-code workflows.
Does Make or Zapier have a free plan?
Yes — both Make and Zapier offer a free tier, so you can trial each before committing.