Zapier vs Make.com (2026)

Best for

Non-technical teams that need the largest app library available and the fastest path from idea to a working automation, where breadth of app coverage matters more than what any single workflow can do

Best for

Teams building workflows that carry real logic, with branching, looping, data transformation and calls out to external AI tools, and who will accept a steeper learning curve to get it

Zapier

Make.com

Zapier

Make.com

What is the difference between Zapier vs Make.com?

Zapier and Make.com are the two dominant no-code automation platforms, and the search that lands here is almost always a team deciding between reach and control. The table above answers the shallow version of that question. Several of its rows answer it misleadingly, and those are the ones worth reading slowly. Start with the pricing row, because it sets two numbers side by side that are not the same kind of thing. Zapier bills per task: one action in one Zap is one task. Make bills per credit against a slider that starts at 10,000 credits a month, where each module action inside a scenario spends one credit. A single job Zapier counts as one task can spend several credits on Make, or fewer, depending entirely on how the scenario is built. Zapier's entry paid rate is $19.99/mo billed annually and Make's is $9/mo billed annually. Both are annual-commitment rates, both vendors publish a higher month-to-month rate, and Make's annual credits pool across twelve months rather than expiring each month. Read that row as two different meters rather than as one price set against another. Both products are genuinely free to start, and the two free tiers stop in different places. Zapier's free plan caps at 100 tasks a month and two-step Zaps, so multi-step workflows, premium apps and webhooks all begin at the first paid tier. Make's free plan allows 1,000 credits and unlimited steps within a scenario, but only two active scenarios and a fifteen-minute minimum run interval. Zapier's free tier limits how complex a single workflow can be. Make's limits how many you can run and how often. What the entry price does not buy differs as well. On Zapier, shared workspaces, folder permissions and SAML SSO require the Team plan, and live chat starts partway up Professional rather than at the bottom of it. On Make, priority execution and full-text log search start at Pro, team roles and audit logs at Teams, and the on-premise agent, SSO and custom functions are Enterprise only. Make's API rate limit also scales by plan, from 60 calls a minute at the entry tier to 1,000 at Enterprise. The app-library difference is the clearest real gap on this page and it is not close. Zapier connects over 9,000 apps and Make connects over 3,000. If the deciding question is whether one particular niche tool has a native connector, Zapier is far more likely to have it, and the fallback on Make is an HTTP module or the Custom Apps builder. That gap is the strongest single argument for Zapier and it has not narrowed. The capability gap runs the other way, and the setup-difficulty row is where it surfaces. Zapier's model is linear: a trigger, then a sequence of actions, with Paths for conditional branches. Make's is a visual canvas carrying branching routes, iterators, error handlers and parallel execution, plus native JSON parsing, array operations and regular expressions without dropping into code. Work that takes several chained Zaps and a Code step is often one Make scenario. That is why Make's row reads moderate where Zapier's reads easy. The difficulty is real, and it is the price of the flexibility rather than a flaw. The MCP row reads as a small difference and is not. Zapier publishes an MCP server, labeled beta on its own product page and included in an existing plan rather than sold separately. It draws on the same task quota as Zaps, so AI-driven usage competes with workflow runs for one allowance. Make publishes both halves: a server that exposes scenarios to external AI assistants, and an MCP client app that lets a scenario call out to somebody else's server. The second half is what the badges flatten. It means a Make scenario can consume external AI tooling as a step in the workflow, and a Zapier Zap currently cannot. The data-training row is the one most likely to push a reader the wrong way. Zapier reads Opt-out and Make reads Not Disclosed, which looks like a point for Zapier. It is closer to the reverse. Zapier's terms state that derived data may be used to develop its products including through model training, and that customers may opt out by submitting a form, with only Company and Enterprise subscribers opted out automatically. That is a disclosed yes with an escape hatch. Make publishes no position on using customer automation data for model training on its security page, its enterprise page or its privacy notice, and its only no-training commitment is narrowly scoped to Google Workspace API data. Neither of those is a no. One vendor has told you what it does and the other has not, which is a different thing from the other one doing less. On certifications both publish SOC 2 Type II and GDPR. Make adds ISO 27001, held through its parent company Celonis, and Zapier adds CCPA. Both also publish SOC 3, which sits outside the certification set this site tracks, and neither claims HIPAA. If a procurement checklist names ISO 27001 the answer is Make, and if it names CCPA the answer is Zapier. For most buyers neither is the deciding row. One fact no field on this page can hold: these are not the same kind of company. Make was founded as Integromat and was acquired by Celonis in 2020, so it is a product line inside an enterprise process-mining business, which is where its ISO 27001, its on-premise agent and its enterprise governance features come from. Zapier has been independent since it was founded in 2011 and is fully remote. Both products are actively developed and both shipped substantial agent functionality over the past year. Neither is a legacy bet. The honest summary is that this stops being a close call once you know which question you are asking. If the deciding factor is whether your tools are supported and how quickly a non-technical colleague can ship something, Zapier wins on library size and on setup, and the ceiling you eventually hit is a real one. If the deciding factor is what a single workflow can do, Make wins, and the cost is a learning curve the difficulty row is not exaggerating. Teams that need neither ceiling often run both, using Zapier for the long tail of simple connections and Make for the handful of workflows that carry real logic. Teams that want this visual model without per-run pricing at all usually end up looking at n8n, which is open source and self-hostable, and which neither of these two offers.

Which is best for my team: Zapier vs Make.com?

Zapier is best for: Non-technical teams that need the largest app library available and the fastest path from idea to a working automation, where breadth of app coverage matters more than what any single workflow can do. Make.com is best for: Teams building workflows that carry real logic, with branching, looping, data transformation and calls out to external AI tools, and who will accept a steeper learning curve to get it.

How does pricing compare between Zapier vs Make.com?

Zapier uses a freemium model, starting at $19.99 per month on an annual commitment (month-to-month costs more). Make.com uses a freemium model, starting at $9 per month on an annual commitment (month-to-month costs more).

Free · Every Two Weeks

AI Agent Price & Rating Tracker

Price changes, new agent launches, acquisitions, and rating updates across the AI agent market. Verified against live vendor data, not vendor marketing.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We never share your email.