A visual platform that allows you to design, build, and automate anything from tasks to entire workflows.
Final Score: 7.1/10, and the short version is that Make is a strong, fairly priced automation tool held back from a higher score by its credit system and inconsistent support. Bottom Line: If you have at least three recurring weekly tasks that need data moved between different apps, Make clearly earns its price. If you're not there yet, wait.
Skip Make if your manual tasks amount to two or three a month. The time you'll spend learning the tool outweighs what it saves you. Manual copy-pasting, or Zapier's free tier, does the job just fine in that case.
Skip it too if you want a ready-made solution with zero setup. Make asks you to build every scenario yourself, step by step. There's no magic template that already understands your business the moment you sign up.
Make wasn't built to replace ChatGPT or Claude. It was built for a narrower problem: moving recurring data between two or more apps without doing it by hand every single time. Where AI tools give you a piece of text or an analysis, Make gives you the bridge that automatically moves that text or that analysis from one place to another.
It launched out of Prague in 2012 as Integromat, before Celonis acquired it in 2020 and renamed it Make in 2022. The core idea hasn't changed since day one: give someone who isn't a developer the ability to connect systems, a capability that used to require an engineering team.
Using Make day-to-day feels like having an assistant who knows exactly where every piece of information needs to go, provided you've explained the route clearly once. It doesn't guess on your behalf, but it never forgets a step once you've built it.
The learning curve is reasonable for a non-technical user, but it isn't instant. A two-step scenario clicks within minutes. A scenario that branches based on a condition takes real hands-on time before it feels natural. This usually happens on your laptop, between calls, with zero IT support standing by.
Visual Scenario Builder: Every step shows up as a box connected to the next, so you see the entire data path in front of you. In testing, tracing an error in the fifth step of a seven-step scenario took under two minutes, because the diagram shows exactly where the data stopped moving.
Routers: These let a single scenario branch into two different paths based on a condition, like handling an urgent request differently from a routine one. They worked reliably in testing, but every additional path means additional operations consumed on every run, something a lot of people miss until they see the bill.
Make AI Agents: Shipped in February 2026, this lets you build an agent that makes a decision inside the scenario itself, like classifying a message before passing it to the next step. Still in beta across all plans. Results were solid for simple classification tasks, but it consumes variable operations based on processing load, not a fixed rate like every other module.
The biggest surprise for most new users is how operations are actually counted. An operation is charged per module executed, not per full scenario run, so a 10-module scenario running 100 times a month burns 1,000 operations, not 100.
Buying extra operations after you run out of your monthly allowance costs roughly 25% more than the rate included in your base plan, a difference worth calculating in advance if your scenarios branch heavily.
Support is a genuine, well-documented weak point across multiple reviews. Several users describe waiting days for a response to a simple support ticket, while others describe a fast, helpful experience. The experience is inconsistent, and that inconsistency is itself useful information.
The real question isn't "what if my business grows?" It's "what happens when I go from testing this once a week to running it every single day?"
On the Core plan's 10,000-operation monthly allowance, an average 5-module scenario running twice a day burns roughly 300 operations a month, comfortable for most everyday use. But add a few branching scenarios running every minute instead of every hour, and you can burn through the monthly allowance in about two weeks. Moderate daily use is sustainable on Core. Heavy use pushes you to actually watch your operation count.
At $12/month on the Core plan, Make costs less than an hour of freelance work at roughly $15/hour. If it saves you just one hour a month, it's already paid for itself.
That math holds up clearly if you have three or more recurring weekly tasks moving data manually between two apps. If your only task repeats once a month, the real savings are thin, and Zapier's free plan might already cover it without a new subscription.
Free Plan: 1,000 operations/month, 2 active scenarios maximum, and a 15-minute interval between scheduled runs. Generous enough for a real test, not just a marketing preview.
Core, $12/month (annual) / slightly higher monthly: 10,000 operations, unlimited active scenarios, and scheduling down to 1-minute intervals. This is the plan most people running things solo actually need.
Pro, $21/month: Same operation allowance, plus priority execution, custom variables, and full-text search across your execution log. Only worth the upgrade if you're debugging multiple scenarios daily.
Teams, $38/month: Adds team roles and permissions, a feature with zero value if you're working alone.
Annual vs. Monthly: Annual billing saves more than 15% over monthly, and it's the default option shown on the pricing page. If you're not sure the habit will stick, start monthly for a month or two before committing annually.
Price History: In August 2025, Make renamed its billing unit from "operations" to "credits," keeping roughly the same math for standard tasks while AI-powered steps now consume variable credits based on processing load. Any guide or comparison written before that date is talking about "operations," and the practical meaning is nearly identical.
If You Cancel: Your account automatically drops to the Free plan, and any scenarios relying on paid-plan features stop running. The scenario itself stays saved in your account though. There's no direct export tool for the scenario structure outside the platform.
⚠️ The plan most solo operators actually need: Core at $12/month billed annually.
Prices last verified July 2026.
At $12/month on the Core plan, Make costs less than an hour of freelance work at roughly $15/hour. If it saves you just one hour a month, it's already paid for itself.
That math holds up clearly if you have three or more recurring weekly tasks moving data manually between two apps. If your only task repeats once a month, the real savings are thin, and Zapier's free plan might already cover it without a new subscription.
Signup doesn't ask for a credit card, and you're inside the scenario builder within two minutes of creating an account.
The Magic Moment: The first time you watch a scenario actually run, with data visibly moving between modules step by step, you instantly understand what was happening behind the scenes all along during every manual copy-paste you've ever done.
The Frustration Point: The difference between a "module" and an "operation" isn't obvious on first glance, and plenty of people build an 8-module scenario assuming it'll cost one operation, then get surprised by the real consumption a week in.
Nothing essential gets hidden behind a surprise upgrade wall during this stage though, which is a point in Make's favor compared to tools that show you templates and then charge to actually activate them.
| Feature | Rating | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Visual Scenario Builder |
|
Shows the entire data path, which speeds up debugging noticeably |
| App Library (3,000+) |
|
Covers most marketing and sales tools; the HTTP module fills any gap |
| Routers & Filters |
|
Genuinely powerful, but every extra path means extra operations consumed |
| Make AI Agents |
|
Solid for simple classification, but still in beta with variable operation costs |
| Precise Scheduling (down to 1 min) |
|
A real difference over the Free plan for anything needing near-instant response |
| Execution Log & Monitoring |
|
Shows exactly where a scenario stalled, genuinely useful for fast debugging |
| Shared Scenario Templates |
|
Useful, but locked behind the Teams plan and above |
Support channels on the Core plan are essentially limited to a ticket system through the support page, with no live chat. The real response time users report varies wildly, from a few hours to several days depending on the issue.
There's an active community forum, and it's often faster than official support for common scenario-building questions. There's no live chat on any of the core paid plans, worth knowing in advance if you're relying on the tool inside a process that faces your clients directly.
Across Capterra and Trustpilot, the most consistent praise is for the visual scenario builder itself, with users describing it as clearer and easier than alternatives like n8n when building a complex automation for the first time.
The most consistent complaint is slow support response times, with several users describing repeated contact attempts with no clear response, while others describe the exact opposite experience as "excellent and beyond expectations." That gap between experiences is worth weighing before building something business-critical that depends on a fast support response when things break.
