Last Updated: 9 August 2026

Executive Summary

Make, formerly Integromat, is a visual workflow automation platform that lets businesses connect apps and build multi-step “scenarios” without writing code. Owned by process-intelligence company Celonis since 2020, it’s built a reputation as the more flexible, more affordable alternative to Zapier — supporting branching logic, loops, and parallel paths that Zapier’s linear model doesn’t handle as naturally. In 2026, Make has pushed hard into AI, adding agentic automation, an AI co-builder, and a real-time view of an organization’s entire automation landscape. The trade-offs are real: a credit-based pricing model that rewards careful scenario design and punishes sloppy ones, a genuine learning curve for complex workflows, and enterprise security features gated behind a costly top-tier plan.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Key Takeaways

• Make’s visual canvas supports branching, loops, and parallel paths — a meaningfully different (and more flexible) model than Zapier’s linear trigger-then-action structure.
• On August 27, 2025, Make renamed its billing unit from “operations” to “credits.” For standard automations the math is unchanged (one module run still costs one credit), but AI and code modules consume credits based on token usage, file size, or page count.
• Pricing is generally cheaper than Zapier for equivalent workflows, starting around $9/month for the Core plan billed annually.
• Make holds SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 certification and is GDPR compliant, but SSO, audit logs, and other enterprise-grade controls are only available on the Enterprise plan.
• Make doesn’t offer true self-hosting — its “on-premise agent” connects local apps to the cloud platform but doesn’t run a fully self-hosted instance, a real difference from open-source alternatives like n8n.
• Make has moved aggressively into agentic AI in 2026, shipping Make AI Agents platform-wide and an AI co-builder (Maia) that can generate scenarios from a prompt.

What Is Make?

Make began life as Integromat, a bootstrapped automation startup founded in 2012 in Prague, Czech Republic. It built a reputation among technical users for a visual automation builder more powerful than early no-code competitors. In October 2020, Integromat was acquired by Celonis, the German process-mining and process-intelligence company, and in February 2022 the platform was relaunched under the Make brand, with Integromat retired as a legacy product through the rest of that year.

Today, Make operates as a dedicated business unit within Celonis — a company valued at roughly $13 billion and used by organizations including Uber, Siemens, and BMW for process intelligence. Make itself reported around $52.6 million in revenue in 2025, and at its 2022 relaunch the company said Make powered over 500,000 organizations globally, a figure that has continued to grow since.

At its core, Make lets users build “scenarios” — visual flowcharts where each module represents an app action, connected by data flows. Unlike Zapier’s strictly linear trigger-then-action model, Make supports routers, filters, loops, and parallel branches natively on the canvas, which is why technical users and agencies building complex, multi-step workflows have gravitated toward it.

Who Is It Best For?

It’s a strong fit for:

• Technical users and agencies building complex workflows. Make’s branching, filtering, and error-handling capabilities go well beyond what simpler automation tools offer, and its visual canvas makes those complex flows easier to reason about than code.
• Cost-conscious teams switching from Zapier. For equivalent workflows, independent comparisons consistently find Make meaningfully cheaper, particularly at moderate-to-high automation volume.
• Multi-platform businesses outside the Microsoft ecosystem. Make integrates broadly across non-Microsoft SaaS tools, giving it an edge over Power Automate for teams not fully committed to Microsoft 365.
• Teams experimenting with agentic AI workflows. Make AI Agents and the Maia co-builder let businesses combine deterministic automation with AI decision-making inside the same scenario.
• Data-heavy operational workflows. Built-in data stores, JavaScript and Python code modules, and robust JSON handling suit teams that need real data transformation, not just simple app-to-app handoffs.

It’s probably not the right choice for:

• Non-technical teams that want automations running fast with minimal setup — Make’s flexibility comes with a real learning curve that Zapier’s simpler model avoids.
• Businesses that need full self-hosting for data residency or compliance reasons — Make’s on-premise agent connects local apps but doesn’t provide a fully self-hosted instance the way n8n does.
• Smaller teams that need SSO or audit logs — those features are gated behind the Enterprise plan, which one independent source estimates starts around $10,000 a year.
• Teams running very high automation volume without careful scenario design — the credit system can produce unexpectedly high bills if triggers, filters, and iterators aren’t optimized.

Key Features

Scenario Builder. Make’s core visual canvas, where users drag, drop, and connect modules representing app actions. Support for routers, filters, loops, and parallel branches makes it possible to build genuinely complex logic without writing code.

Make AI Agents. Launched in April 2025 and expanded across all plans by February 2026, this lets businesses build agentic automations where an AI model makes decisions within a scenario, working alongside deterministic, rule-based steps rather than replacing them.

Maia (AI co-builder). A beta AI assistant that can generate scenario structure from a natural-language prompt, plus an “Explain flow” feature that summarizes what an existing scenario does — useful both for onboarding new team members and for auditing inherited automations.

Make Grid. Launched in June 2025, a real-time visualization layer showing an organization’s entire automation and AI landscape in one view, aimed at businesses running dozens or hundreds of scenarios who’ve lost track of what connects to what.

1,800+ app integrations plus HTTP/webhook modules. A broad native app library, extendable to virtually any service with an API through Make’s generic HTTP and webhook modules.

Data Stores. A built-in lightweight database for scenarios, letting users persist and retrieve data between automation runs without standing up a separate database.

JavaScript and Python code modules. For teams that hit the limits of visual logic, Make supports embedded code execution directly inside a scenario, bridging the gap between no-code and full custom development.

MCP Toolboxes. Lets external AI tools, including Claude, connect to and manage Make scenarios directly — positioning Make as an automation backend that AI assistants can operate rather than only a human-operated builder.

Ease of Use

For simple, linear automations, Make is approachable: the visual canvas is genuinely easier to read than code, and features like Auto-align and the Maia co-builder lower the barrier for less technical users. The free plan is a real, hands-on evaluation environment, not a stripped demo.

The learning curve steepens quickly with complexity. Independent reviews consistently flag Make’s branching and merging logic as powerful but not always intuitive — one review specifically notes that merging multiple branches back together is more cumbersome than splitting them apart. Reviews also mention mixed experiences with support responsiveness and error message clarity when scenarios fail, which matters more for Make than simpler tools since its flexibility means there are more ways for a workflow to break.

For technical users and agencies who invest the time to learn the platform properly, Make rewards that investment with control most simpler tools don’t offer. For teams that want to build an automation in ten minutes and never think about it again, the learning curve is a genuine cost to weigh against Zapier’s simplicity.

Performance

Make’s execution model is generally reliable for standard automation workloads, and its Enterprise plan runs in a separately managed, isolated AWS environment with a stated 99.5% cloud service uptime commitment. For self-serve plans, Make doesn’t publish an equivalent public uptime SLA.

The more consequential performance question for most businesses isn’t reliability — it’s cost predictability. Because credits are consumed per module execution rather than per completed workflow, a scenario that looks simple on the canvas can consume far more credits than expected once triggers, filters, and iterators are counted individually. Multiple independent sources describe teams underestimating their real usage by three to five times on their first billing cycle, which is less a performance issue than a design and planning one — but it directly affects whether a plan tier is actually sufficient for a given workload.

Integrations

Make connects to more than 1,800 apps natively, spanning CRMs, marketing tools, databases, communication platforms, and cloud infrastructure, with generic HTTP and webhook modules covering anything without a dedicated connector. It’s listed on the AWS Marketplace, and enterprise customers have used it to integrate large, legacy tech stacks — Celonis’s own internal systems team, for example, has used Make to connect tools including Salesforce, Workday, ServiceNow, and multiple AI providers.

On the AI side, Make integrates with OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google’s Gemini and Vertex AI models as native modules, and MCP Toolbox support means external AI assistants can call into Make scenarios directly rather than Make only being operated through its own interface.

Pricing & Value

Make’s Free plan includes 1,000 credits a month and up to two active scenarios — enough to build and test a genuine automation, though real usage will need a paid plan quickly. On August 27, 2025, Make renamed its billing unit from “operations” to “credits.” For standard, non-AI automations the underlying math didn’t change: one module execution still costs one credit. AI and code-execution modules, however, now consume credits based on token usage, file size, or page count, which can behave very differently from the old flat-rate model.

Paid plans, billed annually, start around $9/month for Core (10,000 credits, unlimited active scenarios), $16/month for Pro (adds priority execution, custom variables, and full-text execution log search), and $29/month for Teams (adds team roles, permissions, and shared scenario templates) — all figures roughly 15–20% higher on monthly billing. Enterprise is custom-priced and adds SSO, SCIM, audit logs, custom credit volumes, overage protection, and 24/7 support; one independent source estimates Enterprise contracts starting around $10,000 a year, though Make doesn’t publish this figure directly.

For equivalent workflows, multiple independent comparisons find Make meaningfully cheaper than Zapier, even accounting for Make’s tendency to count more granular steps as separate operations. The real cost discipline required is architectural: scenarios built around efficient triggers (webhooks over polling, filtered searches over full re-scans) cost meaningfully less than naively designed equivalents doing the same job.

Strengths

• Visual canvas supports genuine branching, looping, and parallel logic that Zapier’s linear model can’t match natively.
• Generally cheaper than Zapier for equivalent workflow volume, even after accounting for Make’s more granular operation counting.
• Real, fast-moving investment in agentic AI: Make AI Agents, the Maia co-builder, and MCP Toolbox support all shipped or expanded within the past 18 months.
• SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 certified, with GDPR compliance and a VPN-only hosting environment not directly accessible from the public internet.
• Built-in code execution (JavaScript and Python) and data stores give technical teams real flexibility without leaving the platform.

Limitations

• Credit-based pricing rewards careful scenario design and can produce meaningfully higher bills than expected for poorly optimized workflows.
• Genuine learning curve for complex branching and merging logic, with mixed reviews on support responsiveness when something breaks.
• No true self-hosting — the on-premise agent connects local apps to Make’s cloud platform but doesn’t provide a fully self-hosted instance.
• SSO, audit logs, and other core enterprise security controls are gated behind the Enterprise plan, pricing smaller, compliance-conscious teams out of features they may still need.
• ISO 27001 and HIPAA compliance status is not clearly published; prospective healthcare or highly regulated customers should confirm directly with Make’s sales team before assuming coverage.

Alternatives

Zapier. The better choice for non-technical teams that want the broadest app ecosystem and the fastest path to a working automation, at a meaningfully higher price for equivalent volume.

n8n. Worth choosing when true self-hosting, unlimited operations, or full infrastructure control matter more than Make’s polish — better suited to development teams comfortable managing their own instance.

Power Automate. The stronger option for organizations whose entire stack already lives inside Microsoft 365, where native Teams and SharePoint integration outweighs Make’s broader but less deeply integrated app library.

The Future Signal

Make’s real story in 2026 is the shift from “visual Zapier alternative” to something closer to an orchestration layer for AI-driven business processes. Make AI Agents, the Maia co-builder, and Make Grid all point toward the same idea: automation scenarios and AI agents increasingly need to be designed, governed, and visualized together, not built as separate systems that happen to talk to each other.

That direction makes sense given who owns Make. Celonis’s core business is process intelligence — understanding how work actually flows through an organization — and folding AI-native automation into that story is a logical extension, not a bolt-on. For businesses already using Make, that ownership brings genuine resourcing and enterprise credibility that a standalone startup wouldn’t have.

The open question is whether Make’s self-serve pricing and security model keep pace with that ambition. A credit system that already confuses new users, combined with enterprise security features locked behind a five-figure annual contract, creates real friction for the small and mid-sized businesses that made Make popular in the first place. Businesses evaluating Make over the next year should watch whether meaningful security controls migrate down-market, or whether Make increasingly optimizes for the larger customers its parent company already serves.

Final Verdict

Overall Rating: 8.5 / 10

Make earns a strong recommendation for technical users, agencies, and businesses building genuinely complex, multi-step automations who want more flexibility and lower cost than Zapier offers. Its investment in agentic AI is real and fast-moving, and its core visual builder remains one of the most capable in the category.

It’s a less certain fit for non-technical teams that want the fastest possible path to a working automation, and for smaller businesses that need enterprise-grade security controls without an Enterprise-tier budget.

Future Signal recommends Make for technical operators and agencies comfortable investing time in learning the platform properly. Teams that prioritize simplicity above all else should weigh Zapier first; teams that need full self-hosting should look at n8n instead.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Make the same as Integromat? Yes. Integromat was rebranded to Make in February 2022, following Celonis’s 2020 acquisition of the company. The underlying platform has continued evolving since, but Make is the current, actively developed product.

Is Make cheaper than Zapier? For equivalent workflows, generally yes — independent comparisons consistently find Make less expensive, even though it counts steps more granularly as separate credits. The exact savings depend heavily on how efficiently a scenario is built.

What changed when Make switched from operations to credits? On August 27, 2025, Make renamed its billing unit from “operations” to “credits.” For standard automations, the math is unchanged — one module execution still costs one credit. AI and code-execution modules now consume credits based on token usage, file size, or page count, which can cost meaningfully more than the old flat rate for AI-heavy workflows.

Does Make offer self-hosting? Not fully. Make offers an on-premise agent that connects local, on-premise apps to Make’s cloud platform, but it doesn’t provide a genuinely self-hosted instance the way an open-source alternative like n8n does.

Is Make secure enough for enterprise use? Make holds SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 certification and is GDPR compliant, with a hosting environment accessible only via VPN. However, SSO, SCIM, and audit logs are only available on the Enterprise plan, and ISO 27001 or HIPAA compliance status isn’t clearly published — confirm directly with Make’s sales team for regulated use cases.

How does Make compare to n8n? Make is generally easier to learn and more polished for non-developers, while n8n offers true self-hosting, unlimited operations at a fixed infrastructure cost, and deeper customization for teams comfortable managing their own instance. Businesses prioritizing ease of use tend to prefer Make; those prioritizing infrastructure control and cost at high volume tend to prefer n8n.

Who owns Make? Make is owned by Celonis, a German process-intelligence company valued at roughly $13 billion, which acquired Integromat (Make’s predecessor) in 2020. Make operates as a dedicated business unit within Celonis rather than a fully independent company.

Conclusion

Make’s biggest strength is genuine workflow flexibility — branching, looping, and parallel logic that Zapier’s simpler model doesn’t natively support — at a price that generally beats Zapier for equivalent volume. Its clearest limitations are a credit system that takes real effort to master, no true self-hosting option, and enterprise security features that remain out of reach for smaller, budget-conscious teams.

For technical users, agencies, and businesses ready to invest time in learning the platform properly, Make remains one of the strongest automation tools available. Teams that want the simplest possible starting point should test Zapier alongside it before committing either way.