Short answer
Choose Zapier if your automations are short and linear and you need breadth of integrations — its directory is the largest in the category. Choose Make if your scenarios branch, loop, or keep growing, because its canvas stays readable where a long Zap does not. Neither can be self-hosted, and both meter per action — so if data residency or per-run billing is your constraint, you are comparing the wrong two products.
What they have in common — and why it matters
These two are far closer to each other than either is to a self-hostable, execution-billed tool. Both are cloud-only. Both meter per action performed rather than per workflow run. Both are mature, well-supported, and perfectly capable of running a small company’s operations.
That shared shape has a consequence worth stating before any feature comparison: if your real constraint is where the data lives or what a long workflow costs per run, neither of them solves it, and picking between them is answering the wrong question. That is a different category of tool — and worth knowing before you commit a year of automations to either.
Complexity: where they genuinely diverge
Zapier’s model is a trigger followed by a sequence of actions. It has grown branching and conditional paths, and they work — but the mental model is still fundamentally linear, and a Zap with a dozen steps and three branches becomes something you scroll rather than something you read.
Make is built around a canvas. Routers split the flow visually, iterators handle collections, and error handlers attach to individual modules. A complex Make scenario looks like a diagram of what it does, which is the difference between maintaining it and rebuilding it whenever the person who wrote it leaves.
Rule of thumb from deploying both: if you can describe the automation in one sentence with no "and then, unless…", Zapier is fine. The moment the description needs a diagram, you want the tool that gives you one.
Integrations: Zapier’s strongest card
Zapier’s directory is the largest in the category and that is not a marketing detail — it is the single most common reason to pick it. Niche CRMs, regional accounting tools, small vertical SaaS products: if it has an integration anywhere, it is most likely on Zapier first.
Make covers the mainstream stack thoroughly and provides an HTTP module for anything else, which works but costs you setup time and someone comfortable reading API documentation.
Do not compare totals. List the six tools you genuinely need to connect, check each by name on both directories, and let the gaps decide. One missing connector on a tool you use daily outweighs several thousand you will never open.
How each one bills, and what that does at volume
Zapier meters tasks; Make meters credits, one per module action — the name on Make's side is now credits, so older comparisons cite a unit that no longer exists. Both are per-action models: a workflow with eight steps consumes eight units every time it fires, on either platform. Neither offers the flat per-run pricing of an execution-billed tool.
Within that shared model, Make has generally been the more generous per unit, which is why high-volume teams tend to drift toward it. But tiers change on both sides, and the only comparison worth trusting is the one you run yourself.
Compute actions per workflow × runs per month for your three busiest automations, then price that against the current tiers: Zapier pricing and Make pricing. We do not reprint figures here — they change, and a stale price in a comparison is worse than no price at all.
Side by side
| Criterion | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Per task (each action) | Per credit (each module action) |
| Workflow model | Trigger then sequence of actions | Visual canvas with routers |
| Complex branching | Supported, harder to read at scale | Native and stays readable |
| Loops over collections | Limited | Iterator modules |
| Integration directory | Largest in the category | Broad, plus HTTP module |
| Self-hosting | Not available | Not available |
| First automation | Fastest to build | Slightly steeper start |
| Best fit | Short linear flows, niche app coverage | Scenarios that keep growing |
The verdict, by situation
Pick Zapier if you need breadth — a long tail of simple connections across many tools, some of them obscure — and if the people building them have no technical background at all. It is the fastest path from idea to working automation.
Pick Make if the automations will keep growing, if they branch, or if you expect to maintain them for years. The canvas is what keeps a complex scenario understandable to the person who inherits it.
Pick neither if your constraint is data residency or the cost of long workflows at volume. Both are cloud-only and both bill per action; no tier changes that. That is the point where a self-hostable, execution-billed platform becomes the honest recommendation.
Frequently asked questions
Is Make cheaper than Zapier?
Both meter per action — Zapier calls them tasks, Make counts them as credits — so neither gives you the flat-per-run model that an execution-based tool would. Make has generally been the more generous of the two per unit, which is why teams with high-volume scenarios tend to drift toward it, but the tiers on both sides change and the only comparison that means anything is the one you run on your own numbers: actions per workflow multiplied by monthly runs, priced against each vendor’s current page.
Which one handles complex workflows better?
Make. Its router and iterator modules let you express branching and looping visually in a way that stays readable as the scenario grows, and it gives you finer control over error handling. Zapier has improved substantially on multi-step logic, but its model still assumes a mostly linear path, and complex Zaps become awkward to read before they become impossible to build.
Which has more integrations?
Zapier, by a wide margin, and it is the strongest argument in its favor. If your stack includes niche or regional SaaS tools, Zapier is more likely to already support them. Make covers the mainstream stack well and offers an HTTP module for the rest. The only test that matters is the specific one: list your six critical tools and check each by name on both directories.
Can either one be self-hosted?
No. Both are cloud-only products, and your data transits their infrastructure. If self-hosting or strict data residency is a requirement, neither of these is the right comparison to be running — an execution-based, source-available tool such as n8n is the category you want instead.
Which is easier for someone non-technical?
Zapier for the first automation, Make for the tenth. Zapier’s linear trigger-then-actions model is easier to grasp with no background at all. Make’s canvas takes an hour longer to click and then stays comprehensible as scenarios grow, where a long Zap becomes a scroll. If you expect a handful of simple connections, Zapier; if you expect the automations to keep growing, Make repays the extra hour.
Can we move from one to the other later?
There is no import path in either direction: the two model workflows differently, so migration means rebuilding. It is manageable for a dozen automations and genuinely expensive for a hundred. Decide the two structural questions — how complex will these get, and how many actions will they run per month — before you commit, because those are the things you would be migrating for.
If you would rather have the automation built than the comparison read, that is our job — we deploy both, and we say plainly when neither is the right answer. Book a call and we will tell you which one your case actually calls for.
