Both tools connect the apps you already use and run workflows between them. The difference is how they charge and how they think. Zapier charges per task and models automation as a straight line; Make charges in credits per module and models it as a canvas with branches. Which one is right depends less on features than on the volume and shape of the work.
Pricing at realistic volume
At the time of verification (2026-09-09), Zapier's Professional plan starts at $29.99 a month on monthly billing ($19.99 annual) with 750 tasks. Its free tier allows 100 tasks and two-step Zaps only, which makes it a demo rather than a plan. Make's Core plan starts at $12 a month ($10.20 annual) with 10,000 credits, and its free tier allows 1,000 credits with two active scenarios on a 15-minute polling interval.
The units are not equivalent, and that is where people get caught. On Zapier, every action step in a run consumes a task, so a five-step Zap that fires 200 times uses 1,000 tasks. On Make, each module execution consumes credits, so a chatty scenario with many modules also burns allowance quickly. Even allowing for that, the entry numbers tell the story: 750 tasks for $29.99 against 10,000 credits for $12. Zapier's Professional pricing scales with task volume all the way to 2,000,000 tasks at $5,099 a month on monthly billing; Make's Pro ($21) and Teams ($38) tiers keep 10,000 credits at entry and add capabilities rather than volume.
For a team, Zapier's Team plan starts at $103.50 ($69 annual) with 2,000 tasks and 25 users, plus shared Zaps, folders, connections and SAML SSO. Make's Teams plan at $38 adds roles and template sharing. If you only have a few automations and they fire a few hundred times a month, the price difference is a rounding error against the apps they connect. If you are processing leads, orders or records by the thousand, Make is materially cheaper for the same work.
Automation depth
Make is the more capable engine. Routers, filters, iterators and aggregators give you real branching and array handling; the generic HTTP and JSON modules reach any REST API; scheduling goes down to one-minute intervals on paid tiers; and the execution log shows exactly what data each module received. Zapier has branching paths, filters, delays, webhooks and code steps, so most things are possible, but complex branching and data transformation are clunkier and cost more tasks. Zapier's lower tiers also poll rather than fire instantly, which introduces latency for time-sensitive workflows.
Zapier's advantage is the catalog: thousands of connectors, the largest in the category. Make's library is smaller, so a long-tail app means falling back to the HTTP module and reading API docs. Zapier also bundles tables, interfaces and chatbots for light internal tools, and its Copilot drafts workflows from plain-language prompts.
Ease of use
Zapier is the easiest on-ramp in the category and it is not close. The trigger-then-actions model needs no explanation and templates exist for most common pairings. Make's canvas and data-mapping syntax take real time to learn; the pay-off is that you can see the whole flow and debug it precisely, but a complete beginner who wants a linear wizard will bounce off it.
Exit cost
Low for both in data terms, since the automations move data between other systems rather than storing it. The cost is rebuild time. A library of fifty Zaps is a fortnight to recreate anywhere; a library of complex Make scenarios is longer because they encode more logic. Keep a written inventory of what each automation does either way.
Scenario by scenario
A small business routing form leads into a CRM and a Slack channel: Zapier. Two or three Zaps, low volume, and the connectors exist for whatever CRM you use.
An agency building client automations it will maintain for years: Make. The Teams tier is cheap, the logs make support tractable, and the HTTP module handles the odd client system.
An ecommerce operation syncing orders, inventory and customer records across systems: Make, on volume alone. Per-task pricing on thousands of daily operations is where Zapier bills balloon.
A team with no technical owner that still needs automation: Zapier, even at higher cost. An automation nobody can maintain is worse than none.
A proof of concept before committing: Zapier's free tier for a two-step test, then decide. Make's free tier is usable for small production work but the 15-minute polling and two-scenario cap limit what you can prove.
What neither does well
Neither is a system of record. Automations that need a database with history and reporting should write to one rather than rely on Zapier Tables or Make's data stores. Neither replaces marketing automation: if the workflow is "email this person a sequence when they do X", a platform with the workflow built in is cheaper and more reliable than triggering sends through a connector; see /tool/activecampaign. And neither is cheap if you design carelessly. Zapier bills every step and Make bills every module, so the discipline of building lean workflows matters on both.
Profiles at /tool/zapier and /tool/make; more options at /alternatives/zapier.