Zapier vs Make: Two Approaches to Automation
Zapier and Make solve the same problem — connecting apps without code. But they do it so differently that the choice boils down to one question: linear logic or branching logic? Simple workflow or complex scenario? Let’s break it down.
Sites: zapier.com | make.com
Comparison Table
| Parameter | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Automation Type | Linear chains (trigger → actions) | Visual scenarios with branches and loops |
| Integrations Count | 7,000+ | 2,000+ |
| Free Plan | 100 tasks/mo | 1,000 operations/mo |
| Entry Paid Plan | $19.99/mo (750 tasks) | $10.59/mo (10,000 ops) |
| Visual Editor | Step list | Drag-and-drop canvas |
| Error Handling | Automatic retry | Flexible — customizable error handlers |
| Inter-step Data | Flat, linear passing | Arrays, aggregators, iterators |
| Execution Timing | Instant (polling every 1-5 min) | Instant or scheduled |
| Learning Curve | Minimal — 10 minutes | Medium — 1-2 hours |
| Enterprise Features | SAML, Advanced Admin | Teams, Custom Variables, Templates |
Deep Dive: Interface and Logic
Zapier: Linear Thinking
Zapier builds automation as a list: trigger → filter → action → action → action. It’s dead simple. You create a Zap in 3 minutes. But if you need logic like “if response A — send there, if B — transform and send here,” workarounds begin. Paths in Zapier solve this partially, but each path duplicates steps.
Strength: 7,000+ apps. If a service exists, it’s probably in Zapier.
Make: Visual Programming
Make (formerly Integromat) builds automation on a canvas: blocks connected by lines, data flowing between them. You can branch, loop, aggregate — all visually. For complex scenarios, this is radically better.
Strength: cost. Make counts operations, not tasks. One task in Zapier can have 3 steps and costs as 1 task. In Make, each step is an operation, but they’re 10× cheaper.
Pricing: Real-World Math
Scenario: “New Facebook lead → CRM check → email → Asana task → Slack notification”
| Scenario | Zapier (Starter) | Make (Core) |
|---|---|---|
| 100 triggers/mo | 100 tasks ($19.99) | 500 ops — fits in free |
| 500 triggers/mo | 500 tasks ($19.99) | 2,500 ops ($10.59) |
| 2,000 triggers/mo | Professional ($49) | 10,000 ops ($18.82) |
| 10,000 triggers/mo | Team ($69/user) | Teams ($37.64) |
Make wins on price by 2-4× at comparable volumes. But there’s a nuance: Make counts ALL operations, including condition checks and internal actions. Zapier only counts external steps.
Affiliate Programs: Head to Head
| Parameter | Zapier Affiliate | Make Affiliate |
|---|---|---|
| Commission | 20% for 12 months | 25% for 12 months |
| Cookie | 90 days | 60 days |
| Avg Revenue per Client | ~$100/year | ~$50/year (lower avg spend) |
| Platform | PartnerStack | PartnerStack |
| Minimum Payout | $25 | $25 |
Make pays a higher percentage, but the average spend is lower (most clients are on $10-20/mo plans). Zapier brings more absolute money per client thanks to pricier tiers.
When to Choose What
Choose Zapier if:
- You need maximum simplicity and setup speed
- You’re integrating niche services (Zapier covers more)
- Automations are simple: trigger → 1-3 actions
- The team is non-technical
Choose Make if:
- Scenarios involve branching and conditions
- Budget is limited — Make is 2-4× cheaper
- You need loops and array processing
- A technical team wants control over data flow
Bottom Line
Zapier = iPhone (simple, expensive, ecosystem). Make = Android (flexible, cheap, higher barrier to entry). For 80% of small businesses, Zapier is enough. For technical teams and automation enthusiasts — Make delivers more for less. Affiliate-wise, both are profitable — Zapier slightly more in absolute terms, Make is better for price-sensitive audiences.