Loading tutorials…
Loading tutorials…
Zapier is the default. Make (formerly Integromat) is the budget choice. The honest answer for which to pick depends on your stack, your volume, and how technical your team is. Here's the framework we use when we audit accounts.
Who this is forOperators on Zapier Pro or above feeling the bill, OR new operators trying to decide where to start. Also for anyone whose Zap count is past 30 and they're staring at a $300+/mo bill.
What you'll need
Step 1
Zapier prices per Task (one per successful action). Make prices per Operation (one per module run). On equivalent volumes, Make is typically 30-60% cheaper at high scale.
Zapier 2026 plan tiers (approximate, check current pricing): Free 100 Tasks, Starter 750/mo ($29), Professional 2,000+/mo ($73), Team 50K/mo ($103), Company 100K+/mo (custom).
Make 2026 plan tiers: Free 1,000 Operations, Core 10K/mo ($9), Pro 10K/mo ($16), Teams 10K+/mo ($29), Enterprise (custom).
Critical: a Zapier 5-step Zap = 5 Tasks per run. A Make 5-module scenario = 5 Operations per run. The unit cost differs but the math is similar.
At 10K runs/month with 4-step scenarios: Zapier needs Pro+ ($73) and may push into Team ($103). Make handles it on Pro ($16). Annual delta: ~$700-1,000.
At 100K runs/month: Zapier is on Company tier (custom, usually $400+/mo). Make is on Teams or Enterprise ($100-300/mo). Annual delta: $3,600-12,000.
Run the math on YOUR volume. Don't trust generic comparisons — your action-per-run shape is what determines real cost.
Step 2
Zapier: 7,000+ integrations, most polished UX. Make: 2,000+ integrations, more powerful per-integration. Check your specific app list before deciding.
Zapier integrates with 7,000+ apps as of 2026. Make integrates with ~2,000.
Coverage gaps that matter: many SMB-tier marketing tools only have Zapier integrations. Many enterprise tools have both with feature parity. Some custom/niche tools have neither — webhook-only.
Before deciding, list your 5-10 critical apps. Check each on both platforms. If any are Zapier-only and critical, the decision is made.
Make tends to expose more granular API operations per integration. For example, Make's HubSpot integration exposes 30+ specific operations; Zapier's HubSpot exposes ~15. For complex flows, Make wins on per-app depth.
If most of your apps work on both, the integration question is a wash.
Step 3
Zapier: linear top-to-bottom editor, AI Copilot, polished for non-technical users. Make: 2D canvas with branching, more visual, steeper learning curve.
Zapier editor: vertical stack of steps. Add/remove with "+". AI Copilot scaffolds Zaps from natural language. Designed for marketing operators with no engineering background.
Make editor: 2D canvas where each module is a draggable node and routes branch visually. Filters, iterators, and aggregators are first-class. Designed for ops engineers and developers.
Team test: if your team is comfortable with Notion-style linear flows, Zapier wins on UX. If your team is comfortable with Figma-style canvases or has dev experience, Make wins on power.
AI Copilot in Zapier (and Make AI in Make) close some of the learning curve gap, but the underlying paradigm difference remains.
Migration tax: if you switch from Zapier to Make, expect 2-4 hours of team retraining per active user before productivity matches the old platform.
Step 4
Make has more built-in error routes (error handlers per module). Zapier has cleaner Zap History UI but fewer built-in error patterns. Both require discipline.
Make: every module can have an "error route" — a dedicated branch that runs only on error. Built into the canvas as a first-class concept.
Zapier: error handling is per-Zap (auto-replay) or built manually with Paths + Code. Less ergonomic but functional once you set it up.
Observability: Make scenarios show every module run on the canvas with status. Zapier History is a list view — easier to scan at scale but less spatial.
For complex flows with many failure modes, Make is more ergonomic. For simple Zaps where reliability is the primary concern, Zapier is fine.
Both require the monitoring discipline covered in our error-handling tutorial. Neither is "set and forget."
Step 5
Migrating a 10-20 Zap stack to Make takes 40-80 hours of work — rebuild, test, run in parallel, cut over. At $100/hr internal cost or $14-16/hr via a specialist, it is $640-8,000.
Migration cost dominates the decision for any existing stack. A clean rebuild of each Zap as a Make scenario takes 1-4 hours depending on complexity.
You cannot trust direct conversion — even with tools that claim to migrate Zaps to Make, the logic rarely transfers cleanly. Plan for rebuild.
Best-practice migration: stand up new Make scenarios alongside existing Zaps. Run both in parallel for 7-14 days. Compare outputs. Cut over one scenario at a time.
Hidden cost: every integration auth needs to be set up fresh in Make. OAuth flows differ. Some apps require additional admin approval the second time.
Calculate: migration cost / annual savings = payback period. If payback is over 12 months, stay. Under 6 months, consider seriously.
Step 6
Score your situation: scale, app coverage, team skill, monitoring need. Sum to a decision.
STAY ON ZAPIER if: under 5K Tasks/mo (the savings are too small to migrate), need apps that are Zapier-only, team is non-technical, current Zaps work fine.
MOVE TO MAKE if: over 20K Operations equivalent/mo with 18+ month commitment to automation as a function, need branching/iterator logic Zapier handles poorly, team has ops engineering capacity.
CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS if: over 100K runs/mo and you have engineering capacity — at that scale, n8n (self-hosted), Workato (enterprise), or custom code on a real workflow engine often beats both.
WAIT AND RE-EVALUATE if: your stack is mid-scale and stable. The cost of getting it wrong is higher than the cost of staying for another quarter.
When in doubt, get a specialist to model your specific case. A 30-minute consult prevents a $5K migration mistake.
Common mistakes
Switching platforms for cost without modeling migration
What goes wrong: Make is $50/mo cheaper than Zapier. You migrate to save $600/year. Migration took 60 hours of your time worth $6,000. Net loss in year 1.
How to avoid: Model migration cost as the dominant factor. Switching saves money only if annual savings exceed migration cost within 12-18 months.
Ignoring integration coverage gaps
What goes wrong: You start migration to Make. Two weeks in, you discover one critical app has no Make integration. Now you need to build a custom Webhooks-based path for it, adding 20+ hours.
How to avoid: Audit every app on day 1. Check each on the target platform. Decide based on the full picture, not a sample.
Underestimating team retraining cost
What goes wrong: You migrate to Make assuming the ops team picks it up in a week. Three months later, only one person is productive on it. The whole team's automation throughput drops 50%.
How to avoid: Budget 4-8 hours of retraining per active user. Run the old and new platforms in parallel for 30-60 days so the team can ramp without losing throughput.
Treating platforms as identical except price
What goes wrong: You assume Make and Zapier do "the same thing." During migration, you discover Make handles iterators natively while Zapier needs a Code-by-Zapier loop — and vice versa. Your rebuild is more complex than expected.
How to avoid: For every Zap, document the logic in platform-agnostic pseudocode first. Then rebuild on the target platform using its idioms. Translating click-by-click rarely works.
No A/B period during migration
What goes wrong: You cut over to Make in one weekend. Monday morning, two scenarios are misconfigured and a week of leads is lost before anyone notices.
How to avoid: Run both platforms in parallel for 14 days. Compare outputs daily. Cut over only after the new platform matches the old for 7 consecutive days.
Recap
Done — what's next
How to set up multi-step Zaps in Zapier
Read the next tutorial
Hand it off
Picking a platform is a one-time decision; running automations well is forever. EverestX automation specialists work across Zapier, Make, and n8n — they will help you decide AND own the migration if you switch. Typically $400-1,500 for a migration project at $14-16/hr, plus ongoing $300-700/mo for maintenance.
See specialist rates
At equivalent volumes over 10K runs/month, yes — typically 30-60% cheaper. Below that, the per-month tier differences narrow and the decision should be made on UX and integration coverage, not cost.
Make calls them Operations. One Operation = one module run. A 5-module Make scenario running once = 5 Operations, same as a 5-step Zapier Zap running once = 5 Tasks. The math is symmetric.
Yes, and you should. Run the same flow on both for 7-14 days. Compare outputs to confirm parity before cutting over. Both platforms can hit the same source and destination apps without conflict.
n8n is self-hosted, open-source, much cheaper at scale, and requires real DevOps. If you have engineering capacity and your team is comfortable maintaining infrastructure, it is worth evaluating. Most marketing-led teams find the operational cost not worth the savings.
Yes — for AI-native automations using their AI Copilot and AI-action-by-Zapier features, Zapier ships polish faster. Also Zapier's recent Canvas (visualization) closes some of the gap on multi-Zap orchestration. Make is still more powerful for complex single-scenario logic.
Zapier
One trigger, three or four actions. Easy to draw on a whiteboard, easy to break in production. This walks through chaining, naming, and the error scenarios that hit you on day 30, not day 1.
Zapier
When a built-in action cannot do what you need, Code by Zapier is the escape hatch. Run Python or JavaScript inline. Handy, dangerous if abused, and the source of about 30% of advanced-Zap breakages we see.
Zapier
Default Zapier behavior on errors: fire once, fail silent, halt the Zap. Lose data. This walks through auto-replay, dedicated error Zaps, fallback paths, and the monitoring discipline that catches breaks within an hour — not after the next quarterly review.
Zapier
DIY Zapier is great until your Zap count climbs past 10 and you stop knowing what is running. This is the honest framework: when the cost of self-managing automations exceeds the cost of a specialist, and how to tell which side you are on.
HubSpot Marketing Hub
Workflows are the engine under HubSpot's marketing automation. They are also where 80% of the silent breakage happens — wrong enrollment criteria, missing re-enrollment toggles, branch logic that loops. Here's how specialists build them so they hold up.