Microsoft 365 Copilot vs Make (2026)

Microsoft 365 Copilot

by Microsoft

Make

by Celonis (Make)

Pros

• ✓Native integration across the entire Microsoft 365 surface (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Teams, OneNote) under one license -- enterprises avoid stitching together app-specific AI tools and get unified governance, audit logging, and identity management through Entra ID
• ✓Multi-model intelligence with automatic routing -- Wave 3 added Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.6 alongside GPT-5.2/5.4, and Copilot picks the right model per task; reasoning-heavy work (financial analysis, legal review) can route to Claude while creative content uses OpenAI, all within one product
• ✓Work IQ context layer grounds Copilot in the user's actual emails, files, meetings, Teams chats, and SharePoint -- meaningfully better than tools that need explicit data source connection per task; Microsoft reported +67% engagement on Excel and +65% user satisfaction during preview

Limitations

• ⚠Pricing scales aggressively: $30/user/month on top of base M365 license (Business Standard $12.50, E3, or E5) means real per-seat cost is $42-50/month -- 2-3x what Anthropic's Claude charges for comparable in-app capabilities, and procurement teams should compare effective TCO not just sticker price
• ⚠Adoption has lagged Microsoft's expectations -- only 3% of M365 customers (15M paid licenses) had subscribed to paid Copilot as of March 2026 despite years in market; Wave 3 is widely seen as Microsoft's effort to justify the cost premium and accelerate take-up
• ⚠Cross-app context is improving but still limited -- agentic features GA in Word, Excel, PowerPoint as of April 22 2026, but Outlook and Teams agentic capabilities are rolling out over coming months; some workflows that span apps still require Copilot Cowork ($30/user/mo additional) for full multi-app execution

Pros

• ✓Visual scenario builder handles complex branching, iteration, and data transformation that Zapier's linear editor cannot match
• ✓Operation-based pricing is significantly more cost-effective than Zapier at high volume -- same workflows cost substantially less
• ✓Connects 2,000+ apps with detailed control over data mapping and error handling at each step

Limitations

• ⚠Steeper learning curve than Zapier -- building first scenarios takes meaningful time investment for non-technical users
• ⚠Smaller app library than Zapier at 2,000+ vs 8,000+ -- some niche tools lack native Make connectors
• ⚠No self-hosting option -- data passes through Make infrastructure, limiting use for strict compliance environments