Make.com vs Zapier: Expert Breakdown of 9 Key Differences in Automation & Integrations
Discover 9 key differences in automation and integrations between Make.com vs Zapier in this expert breakdown. Compare workflow complexity, customization, pricing, and more.
Introduction
Automation platforms have redefined how businesses operate, making it easier to connect applications and streamline workflows. Two of the most prominent tools in this space are Make.com (formerly Integromat) and Zapier. Both offer powerful automation features, but they cater to different user needs and levels of technical expertise. If you're trying to decide between Make.com integrations vs Zapier integrations, understanding the differences in critical areas like workflow complexity, user interface, and pricing will help you choose the right platform. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll compare 9 key aspects of these automation giants based on expert user experience.
1. App Integration Volume
Zapier: Over 7,000 Integrations for Broad Coverage
One of Zapier's standout features is its massive integration library. With over 7,000 app integrations, Zapier makes connecting popular tools and hundreds of niche apps easy. For businesses that rely on a broad mix of apps, Zapier offers unmatched versatility, allowing you to automate a wide range of services without worrying about compatibility.
Make.com: Over 2,000 Integrations
Make.com supports around 2,000 app integrations. While it offers fewer integrations compared to Zapier, its strength lies in more detailed customization and control within supported apps, allowing users to perform more complex workflows. Its integrations may be fewer but are often richer in functionality.
2. Workflow Complexity
Zapier: Simple, Linear Workflows with Separate Formatter Step
Zapier is excellent for creating linear workflows that follow a straightforward series of actions triggered by a single event. While Zapier does support branching logic with its Paths feature, it’s best suited for users who need relatively simple automations. For example, if you need to format data, Zapier requires a separate Formatter step, which can make workflows feel slightly fragmented.
Moreover, while Zapier’s code step allows for unlimited possibilities, it may not be as user-friendly for non-technical users. Instead, Zapier often requires more manual steps, especially when handling data formatting or complex workflows.
Make.com: Built for Advanced Users, with Easier Data Manipulation
Make.com also supports single triggers, conditional logic, and router logic, but it offers far greater control over data manipulation. You can directly use formatters, operators, and functions within any step of the workflow, making it easy to transform data without needing separate steps. This makes Make the better choice for more complex workflows. For businesses with detailed automation needs, Make’s platform simplifies data transformation.
However, the platform’s complexity makes it more suited for advanced users who are comfortable managing detailed workflows.
3. Interface
Zapier: Intuitive and Ideal for Beginners
Zapier's interface is designed to be beginner-friendly. It automatically guides users by making triggers available only at the first part of the workflow, with actions following later. This makes it easier for users to understand the logic behind their automations. Zapier’s simple, linear flow view or branching logic with Paths provides a clean and easy-to-understand experience. It’s perfect for users who need a straightforward, no-code interface.
Make.com: More Complex but Faster for Power Users
Make.com’s interface is more complex but also more flexible. Unlike Zapier, where triggers and actions are automatically divided, Make allows users to access triggers and actions from the starting point. You can also use scheduling triggers or even set up complex workflows like ACID triggers. While this makes the interface a bit less intuitive, it’s much faster once mastered. You can copy and paste entire workflows with keyboard shortcuts (Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V), something that Zapier doesn’t allow without manually copying each step.
Make’s interface is also less sluggish compared to Zapier, which is important for users building large-scale workflows who need to move quickly. It’s the ideal choice for power users who need a faster pace of building complex automations.
4. Testing Automations
Zapier: Manual Testing with Sample Data
Zapier allows users to manually test automations step by step, pulling in sample data from the trigger or previous steps. This method is useful but has limitations—users must rely on the data Zapier loads during setup, which might not represent actual workflow conditions. Once the workflow is complete, you can test the whole Zap by publishing it and running it in real-time. However, troubleshooting issues requires checking the Zap history after it’s triggered, which can be time-consuming.
Make.com: Real-Time Testing with Step-by-Step Animations
In contrast, Make.com offers real-time testing with more precise control. You can manually test each step or run the entire workflow once without publishing it. This gives users the flexibility to see exactly how their automation will behave before committing. What sets Make apart is its animation feature—as the automation runs, users can see an animated visual representation of each step’s progress, making it easier to identify where an error might occur. This visual feedback makes testing and troubleshooting much more intuitive and efficient compared to Zapier’s approach.
5. Error Handling and Flood Protection
Zapier: Task Flood Protection to Prevent Overload
Zapier’s flood protection helps prevent overloads when a trigger fires too many times at once. If more than 100 records are triggered, Zapier pauses the workflow, allowing users to manually review the situation before proceeding. Users on higher-tier plans can increase this limit to handle up to 1,500 records simultaneously. This feature is particularly useful in scenarios where massive amounts of data are triggered unexpectedly, helping users maintain control and avoid exceeding their task limits.
Make.com: Advanced Error Handling and Data Queuing
Make.com handles errors in a more detailed manner, distinguishing between “Errors” (critical failures that stop the workflow) and “Warnings” (non-critical issues that don’t halt the process). One of Make.com’s standout features is its ability to handle incomplete executions. If errors occur, you can enable a setting that allows the automation to continue running while storing the incomplete executions for later review. This ensures that workflows aren't entirely halted by errors, and users can address issues without losing data or stopping the entire scenario. This feature differs from Zapier, where errors may pause the entire workflow without storing the incomplete tasks for future execution.
6. Integration Maintenance
Zapier: Company-Maintained for Reliability
Many of the integrations on Zapier are maintained by the companies that own the apps, such as Slack, Google, and Shopify. This results in better support, faster updates, and more reliable performance. Since these integrations are maintained by the app provider, they’re aligned with the latest app features and API changes. However, users are dependent on the app provider’s responsiveness—if the provider doesn’t update the integration promptly, it could affect the workflow.
Make.com: In-House Maintenance with Flexibility
Make.com takes a different approach by maintaining most of its integrations in-house. This gives users greater flexibility and more uniform support across the platform. If you’re using custom APIs, Make allows you to directly manage the integration, providing more control over your workflows. However, this also places the burden of maintaining custom workflows on the user. When API changes occur, users need to manually adjust their workflows to accommodate these updates.
7. Customization Options
Zapier provides a large array of pre-built app integrations, which are maintained by the app providers themselves. These integrations ensure stability and reliability for users, but they come with some limits in terms of customization. Zapier does allow users to create custom workflows, but if you want to go beyond the pre-defined triggers and actions, you have the option of using Webhook actions. This feature enables users to create custom API requests without needing to access Zapier’s developer platform.
Make.com also supports custom API requests, but the key difference between the two platforms lies in the volume of pre-built actions and triggers. Make.com offers a wider range of pre-built actions and triggers compared to Zapier, which gives users more flexibility and power within their workflows without needing to rely on custom API requests.
For example, Xero offers 84 actions on Make.com, compared to just 25 in Zapier. Similarly, PayPal offers 17 actions on Make.com, while Zapier does not provide any pre-built actions for PayPal. This means that, although Make.com supports fewer overall apps compared to Zapier, it often provides deeper, more detailed workflows within each integration.
In summary, both Zapier and Make.com allow users to build custom API requests via webhook actions, but Make.com typically offers more pre-built actions and triggers, making it more suitable for users who need deeper functionality from specific apps.
8. Authentication Process
Both Zapier and Make.com provide a “Connect and Sign In” process for authenticating apps, making it easy for users to connect services and start automating workflows. Zapier’s authentication process is particularly seamless because many of its integrations are maintained by the app companies themselves, meaning the process is standardized and straightforward. This results in fewer instances where users need to manually input API keys or other technical credentials.
Make.com also offers Connect and Sign In functionality for many of its integrations, but since most of its integrations are maintained in-house, there are instances where users need to input API keys, client secrets, or other credentials manually. This additional control may be useful for advanced users, but it adds an extra step in the setup process compared to Zapier.
While Zapier’s authentication process tends to be more simplified for most users, Make.com also supports easy authentication but can require more manual input for certain apps due to its internal integration management.
9. Pricing Comparison
Zapier: Task-Based Pricing with Flexibility
Zapier’s pricing is based on the number of tasks (i.e., individual actions) executed within a workflow. The platform offers flexibility in pricing by not counting certain tools like filters or formatters as tasks, which can make it more cost-effective for simpler workflows. However, for users with complex workflows that require multiple steps, Zapier’s pricing can quickly become expensive as the number of tasks adds up.
Make.com: More Cost-Effective for High-Volume Automations
Make.com offers a more affordable pricing structure compared to Zapier, making it particularly attractive for users with high-volume, complex workflows. Make.com counts every operation (trigger, OR action) as part of its usage, but the starting plan offers 10,000 operations for $10.59. Compare that to Zapier, where the starting plan offers 750 tasks for $29.99—triple the price for 13x fewer tasks.
Make.com’s pricing model, which doesn’t include "scenario" counting, offers more cost efficiency for those who need to execute a large number of operations without incurring heavy costs.
Conclusion: Which Platform Is Right for You?
The choice between Make.com integrations vs Zapier integrations ultimately depends on your needs, technical expertise, and the complexity of your workflows:
Zapier is best for users who prioritize simplicity, ease of use, and access to a wide variety of app integrations. It’s perfect for small businesses or non-technical users who want a quick and straightforward setup.
Make.com is ideal for businesses with complex automation needs that require customization and deeper API access. Its more affordable pricing structure and flexibility make it a powerful tool for users who need detailed control over their automations.
By considering these 9 key aspects, you can choose the platform that best aligns with your business’s automation goals and needs.
FAQs
Which platform is easier to use, Zapier or Make.com?
Zapier is generally easier to use, especially for beginners or non-technical users. Its interface is more intuitive, with a streamlined process for setting up automations. Make.com, while more powerful and flexible, is suited for more advanced users who require detailed control over their workflows and are comfortable handling API keys and complex configurations.
How does Make.com handle errors compared to Zapier?
Make.com offers more granular error handling by distinguishing between "Errors" (which stop the workflow) and "Warnings" (which don’t halt the process). Additionally, Make.com can queue data when a workflow is paused, ensuring no data is lost. Zapier offers task flood protection, pausing workflows when too many tasks are triggered simultaneously, but it doesn’t store trigger data when a workflow is turned off.
Is Make.com cheaper than Zapier?
Make.com can be more affordable for users with complex workflows, as it offers a pricing model based on operations rather than tasks. However, for workflows with a large number of triggers or actions, the cost could rise. Zapier's task-based pricing can quickly become expensive for complex workflows but is flexible for simpler automations as certain tools (e.g., filters) don’t count toward usage.
Can I customize workflows more in Make.com than Zapier?
Make.com offers more pre-built actions and triggers, allowing for greater flexibility in automations. While Zapier does offer custom API integrations, Make.com’s built-in functionalities and complex operations often give users more variety when designing workflows.
Does Zapier or Make.com support more apps?
Zapier supports over 7,000 integrations, making it the clear leader in terms of app variety. Make.com supports over 2,000 apps, but it often provides deeper functionality within each app through more API endpoints and more automation options.
How does testing workflows differ between Zapier and Make.com?
Zapier offers manual testing with sample data for each step and real-time testing by publishing workflows and checking the history. Make.com provides real-time, step-by-step testing with animations, allowing users to visually track workflow progress, making troubleshooting easier and faster.
Other blogs you might want to check:
To help you explore other topics related to Zapier and Make.com, check out these posts:
At i3 Visionaries, we understand the challenges of IT automation and workflow management. We specialize in helping businesses navigate the complexities of automation tools like Make.com and Zapier, ensuring you get the most out of your workflows without the hassle. Whether you need help with basic integrations or building custom automation, we’ve got you covered.
Solopreneurs, Focus on What You Do Best, We'll Handle the Rest.
Ready to streamline your business operations?
About Us
Turning challenges into growth with customized support
Navigation
Our Certificates
Email Us
Follow Us
© 2024 by i3 Visionaries. All rights reserved.