— Zapier wins on simplicity, integration breadth (8,000+ apps), and reliability — but you pay 3–7× more per workflow than on Make. Make wins on price, complex workflow logic, and visual clarity — but the learning curve is steeper and triggers/filters count against your operation budget. For most SMBs running predictable automations, Make is the better deal in 2026. For non-technical teams that need things to "just work," Zapier still earns its premium.
I've migrated clients between Zapier and Make several times over the past year, both directions. The "which is better" question has no clean answer — but the math gets very specific once you know what to look for. Here's the consolidated version of the comparison I now run before any client decision.
How they actually differ
Both platforms connect apps and trigger actions when events fire. The deeper differences are in how they do it:
- Editor philosophy. Zapier is a top-to-bottom step list — one step visible at a time, simple branching via Paths. Make is a flowchart canvas where every module is visible at once with arrows showing data flow. Zapier feels like a checklist; Make feels like a circuit diagram.
- Counting model. This is the core pricing difference. Zapier counts only successful action executions. Triggers, filters, and Paths logic are free. Make counts every module that runs as an operation — including triggers, filters, and iterators. Same outcome, very different invoice.
- Complexity. Zapier hides complexity behind sensible defaults; Make exposes it. Sub-loops over data arrays, conditional branching with multiple paths, error-handling routes — Make handles these elegantly. Same on Zapier requires nested Paths and creative Formatter use.
- AI assistance. Zapier Copilot can build a draft Zap from a plain-English description. Make AI Assist mostly suggests next steps in an existing scenario. Copilot is more mature for first-build scenarios in 2026.
Pricing 2026 (annual billing)
Monthly billing adds 30–40% on both platforms.
| Tier | Zapier | Make.com |
|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 — 100 tasks, 5 single-step Zaps | $0 — 1,000 ops, 2 active scenarios |
| Entry paid | Professional from $19.99/mo — 750 tasks | Core $10.59/mo — 10,000 ops |
| Mid tier | Professional 2k tasks — ~$73.50/mo | Pro $18.82/mo — 10,000 ops |
| Team | Team $69.50/mo — 2,000 tasks, 25 users | Teams $34.12/mo — 10,000 ops |
| Cost for 10k events/mo | ~$73.50/mo | ~$10.59/mo |
| Triggers count? | No | Yes |
| Filters count? | No | Yes |
Make is roughly 7× cheaper at 10,000 monthly events. But — the counting models are different units. Zapier's free filters/triggers can offset some of the gap on filter-heavy workflows. Always run a sample workflow on both free tiers before committing.
For the operation-counting deep-dive on the Make side, here's the full Make.com pricing breakdown — including how a "3-step" workflow on the canvas can actually consume 8–15 ops per run.
Real costs — three SMB scenarios
Numbers from actual client migrations.
Solo freelancer, 5 client workflows
5 workflows × 50 runs × 4 actions = ~1,000 events/month.
- Zapier: Professional 1.5k tier ≈ $29/mo
- Make: Core $10.59/mo with massive headroom
- Annual delta: Make saves ~$220/year
Small enough that simplicity might justify Zapier for non-technical builders.
E-commerce, 1,000 orders/month
Per order: capture → enrich → CRM → confirmation email → Slack (5 actions). Add cart recovery + reports.
- Zapier: ~7,000 tasks → Professional ~$73.50/mo = $882/year
- Make: ~9,200 ops → Core $10.59/mo = $127/year
- Annual delta: Make saves $755/year
At this volume the gap stops being theoretical.
Marketing agency, 8 clients
~25 scenarios across clients, varied frequency, 5 actions average.
- Zapier: 25k–35k tasks → Team $103.50 + extra packs → ~$3,000–4,000/year
- Make: 30k–40k ops → Teams $34.12 + 2–3 extra packs → ~$670–800/year
- Annual delta: Make saves $2,300–3,200/year
At agency scale the math is decisive.
Where each platform actually wins
Zapier wins on:
- Time-to-first-workflow — 15 minutes for a non-technical builder, vs 30–45 on Make
- Integration count — 8,000+ vs 3,000+. Niche industry tools (specialized CRMs, regional payment processors, vertical SaaS) often only on Zapier
- AI flow-building — Copilot is more mature than Make's AI Assist as of 2026
- Native Forms — Make doesn't have an equivalent
- Documentation friendliness — Zapier docs are designed for non-developers
Make wins on:
- Price at scale — dramatically cheaper from ~5,000 events/month upward
- Iterators and aggregators — native handling of "for each line item, do X." On Zapier this is bolted-on Looping that's harder to debug
- Error handlers per module — every module has its own error route, not just retry-or-die
- Visibility — flowchart canvas shows every input/output and every connection at once
- Operation accounting — once you understand it, you can ruthlessly optimize (filter early, aggregate batches, prune polling)
If your stack is mainstream (Google Workspace, Slack, HubSpot, Stripe, Shopify, Mailchimp), both cover the same essentials. The integration count delta only matters when you actually use a niche tool.
A real workflow shape that breaks Zapier's pricing
Here's the kind of automation where Make's counting wins — a Shopify order processing flow with line-item iteration:
Trigger: Shopify webhook (new paid order)
↓
Iterator: For each line item in order.line_items[]
├─ Filter: Only items where requires_shipping = true
│ ↓
│ HTTP: POST to fulfillment provider
│ ↓
│ Set: Update inventory in our DB
↓
Aggregator: Combine all fulfillment IDs
↓
Email: Single confirmation with all tracking numbers
↓
Slack: Notify ops channel
On Make this is one scenario. An order with 4 line items uses roughly: 1 trigger + 4 filter checks + 4 HTTP + 4 inventory updates + 1 aggregator + 1 email + 1 Slack = 16 ops. At 1,000 orders/month with average 4 items = ~16,000 ops. Comfortably on Core ($10.59/mo).
On Zapier you build 4 separate Zaps (or one Zap with awkward Looping) and pay per item. 1,000 orders × 4 items × 4 actions = 16,000 tasks. That's Professional 5k+ tier territory — easily $200+/month.
Same outcome, ~$2,300/year delta. The iterator pattern is where Make's pricing model genuinely punches above its weight.
The 4-question decision framework
Strip the comparison down to what actually matters:
- Monthly executions? Under 1,500 → either works, lean Zapier for ease. Above 5,000 → Make is dramatically cheaper. Above 50,000 → consider self-hosted n8n.
- Who's building? Non-technical team → Zapier. Technical operator → Make.
- Workflow complexity? Simple "X happens, do Y" → Zapier. Multi-branch, data loops, conditional logic → Make.
- Niche app dependency? If your stack includes a tool only Zapier supports, that decides it. Check both catalogs first.
If two answers point to one platform, that's your answer. If they split, weight the one that creates the most pain — usually cost at agency scale, learning curve at solo scale.
Migration notes
There's no automated importer. Migration is manual rebuild — about 30–60 minutes per medium-complexity workflow. The mental model transfers cleanly (triggers, actions, filters, branches), so it's mechanical work, not relearning.
What I do every time:
- Audit before migrating. Most accounts have 30–40% of workflows that should be deleted, not migrated. Cut the dead weight.
- Start with low-risk workflows. Pick one that, if broken for a day, hurts no one. Run both in parallel for 7 days, compare outputs.
- Build error notifications into critical workflows. Both platforms have silent-failure modes. Always add a final step that pings Slack/email on failure.
- Keep the source platform active for 30 days post-migration. Cheap insurance.
Webhooks-first if your source app supports them — for either platform. Polling burns ops and tasks for nothing. New to webhooks? Here's a practical webhook primer including testing.
Verdict
Honest take: start with the free tier of both platforms. Build the same simple workflow on each. Watch which one your team actually wants to open on Monday morning. The right answer is rarely on the published feature list — it's about which tool clicks for the people who'll use it daily.
For high-volume use cases where neither cloud platform fits, the conversation moves to self-hosting. We covered the threshold and setup in n8n vs Make for high-volume automation.
Originally published on TrackStack — practical write-ups on automation, tracking, and infrastructure for SMBs. If your migration math came out differently, drop a comment — I read all of them.
Top comments (0)