Stacks and Flows

Make

Visual workflow builder with 1,800+ apps and deep branching logic — enterprise automation made approachable.

make freemium Updated 2026-05-09
Visit Make →

Pros

  • Best-in-class visual canvas — branching, iterators, and routers are first-class objects
  • 1,800+ app integrations, deeper than n8n on long-tail SaaS
  • Operations-based pricing forgives idle workflows (you pay for what runs)
  • Strong template library and onboarding for non-developers
  • Affiliate program available via PartnerStack, reportedly 20% recurring [inferred from third-party listings]

Cons

  • Cloud-only, no self-host option — reverse of n8n's positioning
  • Operations math gets confusing fast; iterators and aggregators can blow your budget
  • Code modules exist but are deliberately limited compared with n8n's function nodes
  • Affiliate commission rate not posted on the official partner page; you only see terms after PartnerStack signup [not publicly listed]
  • Owned by Celigo (acquired 2020 from Integromat); roadmap is enterprise-leaning, not indie-leaning

Best for

  • Marketing and ops teams who want visual clarity over code flexibility
  • Multi-app automations with complex branching that would be ugly in Zapier
  • Teams already on Google Workspace / HubSpot / Notion looking for the glue layer

What it is

Make (formerly Integromat) is a visual workflow automation platform aimed somewhere between Zapier’s ease and n8n’s depth. Where Zapier is fundamentally a list of “if A then B” rules, Make models workflows as flowcharts with explicit routers, iterators, aggregators, and error handlers — closer to how a developer would draw it on a whiteboard.

It runs in the cloud only. Pricing is based on operations (one operation = one module run), which means a 10-step workflow that runs 100 times burns 1,000 operations. That detail will become important.

Who it’s for

Make’s sweet spot is the non-developer who has outgrown Zapier. Marketing ops, RevOps, customer success teams who hit Zapier’s “this is technically possible but really painful” wall — they tend to land on Make and stay. The visual model is genuinely better at expressing branching logic than Zapier’s path system, and it forces you to think about error paths up front.

It’s a poor fit for engineering teams who want to self-host or who’ll inevitably need to drop into JavaScript. Those people belong on n8n, Pipedream, or Windmill.

Strengths

  • Visual model. Routers, iterators, aggregators, and error handlers are visible objects on the canvas. Compared with Zapier’s nested paths, Make workflows are easier to hand off to a teammate three months later.
  • Integration depth. 1,800+ apps, with several enterprise SaaS integrations (Workday, NetSuite, advanced HubSpot triggers) that competitors lack.
  • Operations pricing. You pay for operations consumed, not seats or polling. Workflows that sit idle don’t charge you.
  • Template gallery. A real library, not the polite Zapier “Top Zaps” page. Useful for cold-starting a workflow.

Weaknesses / Watch out

  • No self-host. This is a strategic choice — Make is firmly cloud-only. If your organization has data residency requirements, look elsewhere.
  • Operations creep. Iterators that fan out an array, aggregators that batch them back, routers that double-process: each module call is an op. We’ve seen “small” workflows quietly burn 50,000 ops/month.
  • Owned by a larger entity. Celigo (the parent) is enterprise-iPaaS-focused. The Make roadmap has visibly tilted toward enterprise features (SSO, governance) more than indie/SMB needs.
  • Affiliate opacity. The Partners page on make.com is mostly Technology Partners (ISVs). The actual revenue-share affiliate program runs through PartnerStack and the commission rate isn’t posted publicly until you apply.
  • Lock-in. Scenarios export to a JSON blueprint, but module logic is Make-specific; migrating to n8n or Activepieces means redoing the work.

Best paired with

  • HubSpot or Pipedrive — Make’s deep CRM modules are where it earns its keep against Zapier.
  • OpenAI or Anthropic via the dedicated AI modules — competent but not as flexible as wiring them into n8n’s AI nodes.
  • n8n as a comparison tool — if you find yourself reaching for Make’s code modules a lot, the migration math may favor n8n.

Pricing reality check

Make’s free tier (1,000 ops/month) is generous for tinkering and breaks down fast in production. The Core tier (~$10/month) gets you 10,000 ops, which sounds like a lot until you build a workflow with an iterator that runs over 50 records and triggers 4 modules each — that’s 200 ops per trigger, and 50 triggers/day eats your budget by mid-month. Most production teams land on the Pro tier ($16-19/month range) within their first quarter. Watch for the silent multipliers: data stores, aggregators, and HTTP retries all count.

Verdict

Conditionally recommended. Make is the right pick if your team is non-technical, your workflows are visually complex, and your data can live in a cloud SaaS. For developer-leaning teams or anyone wanting self-host, n8n wins. For simple linear automations on long-tail SaaS, Zapier still wins on integration count and learning curve. Affiliate terms exist but you have to apply to see them, which is a small ding.

Sources

FAQ

Is Make free?
Make is freemium. Check the official pricing page for current tiers and limits.
What is Make best for?
Marketing and ops teams who want visual clarity over code flexibility Multi-app automations with complex branching that would be ugly in Zapier Teams already on Google Workspace / HubSpot / Notion looking for the glue layer
What are the main downsides of Make?
Cloud-only, no self-host option — reverse of n8n's positioning Operations math gets confusing fast; iterators and aggregators can blow your budget Code modules exist but are deliberately limited compared with n8n's function nodes
Who should use Make?
Visual workflow builder with 1,800+ apps and deep branching logic — enterprise automation made approachable. See our review for the full pros and cons.