The no-code automation scene has exploded, letting just about anyone build powerful workflows without writing a single line of code. Suddenly, you can get all your apps to talk to each other, saving a ton of time on manual, repetitive tasks. In the world of these so-called Integration Platforms as a Service (iPaaS), two names pop up constantly: Zapier and Make.
This post is going to get into the weeds of the Make vs Zapier debate, comparing how they work, how powerful they are, how many apps they connect with, and what they cost. But we’ll also ask a bigger question: what happens when just connecting apps isn’t enough? For complex jobs like customer support, you need more than a simple data-pusher; you need a little intelligence.
What is workflow automation?
At its heart, workflow automation is just about linking your software together so they can handle tasks on their own. Think of it as teaching your apps to cooperate so you don’t have to be the go-between.
The easiest way to get it is the classic "if this, then that" idea. For instance, "If a new lead fills out a form on my website, then automatically add them to my CRM and ping the sales team in Slack."
For any business, this is a pretty big deal. It saves a wild amount of time, cuts down on human error, and lets your team focus on the stuff that actually needs a human brain. Make and Zapier are two of the most popular tools for building these workflows, but they go about it in very different ways.
Make vs Zapier: A head-to-head comparison
While both platforms want to help you connect apps and automate tasks, their design, power, and pricing are aimed at different kinds of people solving different kinds of problems. Let’s break it down.
Make vs Zapier: User interface and ease of use
Zapier: If you’re new to this whole automation thing, Zapier feels very welcoming. It uses a simple, step-by-step process to create an automation (which it calls a "Zap"). You basically just fill out a series of forms, pick options from dropdown menus, and it walks you from the trigger to the final action. For simple A-to-B connections, it’s about as straightforward as it gets.
Make: Make (which used to be called Integromat) goes in a completely different direction with its visual, drag-and-drop canvas. You build automations (called "Scenarios") by connecting little modules with lines, almost like you’re drawing a flowchart. It can look a little intimidating at first, but once you start building workflows with multiple steps or branches, it’s a much clearer way to see how everything connects.
Verdict: Zapier is easier for total beginners. Make is better for visual thinkers and anyone who knows they’ll be building more complicated, multi-step automations.
Make vs Zapier app integrations: Breadth vs depth
Zapier: This is where Zapier flexes its muscles. With a library of over 7,000 app integrations, its biggest strength is its sheer range. If your team uses some niche software-as-a-service tool, there’s a good chance Zapier has an integration for it. This makes it the go-to for teams with a wide and sometimes weird tech stack.
Make: Make has a smaller library of around 2,400 apps, but it often makes up for it in depth. For any given app it supports, Make tends to offer more triggers and actions than Zapier does. It gets deeper into an app’s API, giving you more precise control over what your automation can do. For example, Make might let you search for, create, and update something in an app, while Zapier might only let you create a new one.
Verdict: Zapier wins on the number of apps, no question. Make often wins on how much you can actually do with the apps it supports.
Make vs Zapier: Workflow complexity and power
Zapier: Zapier is designed for linear, one-thing-after-another tasks. It has some tools for adding conditional logic (called "Paths"), but it can feel a bit stiff and limits you to 100 steps in a single Zap. It’s perfect for simple "when this happens, do that" automations but can get messy if you need more complex logic.
Make: This is where Make really pulls ahead. It was built for complexity. You can have unlimited steps in a scenario and create as many branches as you want with its "Router" module. It also has built-in error handling, letting you decide what happens if a step fails. Plus, it has tools for working with data directly in your workflow, like handling lists of items or raw JSON. You’re not just connecting apps; you’re building small operational systems.
Verdict: For complex, multi-path workflows that don’t just go in a straight line, Make is the clear winner.
Make vs Zapier pricing models: Tasks vs operations
How Zapier and Make charge you is a huge difference that can really affect your monthly bill.
-
Zapier charges you per "task." A task is a single data element that has been successfully processed in a single action step. The trigger that starts the workflow doesn’t count, which is nice. The downside is that costs can add up quickly if you have automations that run all the time.
-
Make charges you per "operation." An operation is counted every single time a module in your scenario runs, and that includes the trigger. This might sound worse on the surface, but the cost per operation is so much lower that it almost always ends up being more affordable, especially at scale.
Here’s a quick look at how they stack up:
| Feature | Zapier | Make (formerly Integromat) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing Unit | Tasks (successful actions) | Operations (any module run) |
| Free Plan | 100 tasks/mo, 5 single-step Zaps | 1,000 ops/mo, 2 multi-step Scenarios |
| Entry Paid Plan | ~$20/mo for 750 tasks | ~$9/mo for 10,000 operations |
| Cost-Effectiveness | Can get pricey with high volume | Much more affordable at scale |
| Best For | Low-volume automations, simple flows | High-volume, complex flows |
The hidden limits of Make vs Zapier for support teams
Okay, so Make and Zapier are great for moving data from point A to point B. But they’re generic tools. They don’t have any real understanding of the data they’re moving, and that creates a massive blind spot for specific jobs like customer support.
A support ticket isn’t just a chunk of data. It’s a human conversation with history, frustration, and a specific goal. A generic tool can see a new ticket in Zendesk and post a message in Slack, but it can’t understand what the customer is actually asking.
It can’t read the ticket, search your Confluence or Google Docs knowledge base for the right answer, and then draft a helpful reply that sounds like it came from your team. We’ve seen teams try to build this kind of logic with Zapier or Make, and they end up with these fragile, monster workflows that are a nightmare to maintain and break all the time. This is where standard automation tools hit a wall. You don’t just need to connect your helpdesk to your other tools; you need an AI that can read, understand, and act.
Beyond Make vs Zapier: When you need a specialized AI support agent
This is where a tool like eesel AI fits in. eesel AI isn’t another automation platform; it’s a specialized AI agent designed to plug directly into your support workflow. It’s built from the ground up to automate conversations, not just shuffle data around.
The difference in what that looks like in practice is huge.
Here are a few things that make a specialized AI agent a totally different beast:
-
It actually learns from your knowledge: eesel AI connects to all your company knowledge, whether it’s in past tickets, your help center, or internal docs in Confluence. It learns from your team’s best answers to provide consistent, accurate replies. Generic tools can’t do that; they can only follow rigid rules you set up by hand.
-
You can go live in minutes, not months: Setting up eesel is a quick, self-serve process. You connect your helpdesk, point it to your docs, and you’re good to go. Trying to build even a tiny fraction of this intelligence in Zapier or Make would take weeks of painful, manual configuration.
-
You can test it with confidence: This is a big one. With eesel AI’s simulation mode, you can test it on thousands of your real, historical tickets before it ever interacts with a customer. You get a clear forecast of how many tickets it can solve and can see exactly how it would have replied, letting you make adjustments without any risk. You simply can’t get that kind of safety net with a standard automation tool.
Make vs Zapier: Choosing your automation strategy
So, which tool should you pick? It really depends on what you’re trying to do.
-
Choose Zapier if you want something simple that connects to pretty much every app under the sun. It’s perfect for getting started with basic automations across a lot of different tools.
-
Choose Make if you need to build more powerful, complex workflows and want a tool that’s much more cost-effective as you scale. It’s the right choice for building core operational processes.
But if your goal is to automate customer or internal support, neither of them is really the right tool for the job. Generic tools are great at connecting apps, but specialized AI agents are built to understand conversations. Moving data around is yesterday’s problem. The real challenge now is building an AI that can read, reason, and respond just like your best support agent.
Ready to see what that looks like? Book a demo or try eesel AI for free and see how an AI agent built for support can change your workflows.
Frequently asked questions
Zapier is generally considered easier for total beginners. Its linear, step-by-step process of filling out forms to create an automation is very straightforward and less intimidating than Make’s visual canvas.
Make is almost always more cost-effective, especially as your automation volume grows. Its plans offer a significantly higher number of "operations" for a much lower price compared to Zapier’s "task"-based pricing model.
Make is the clear winner for complexity. Its visual, flowchart-style builder, unlimited steps, and built-in tools for routing and error handling are specifically designed for creating powerful, multi-path workflows.
Zapier is your best bet for niche apps. With a library of over 7,000 integrations, its main strength is the sheer breadth of its app connections, covering far more tools than Make.
A good rule is: choose Zapier for simple, linear automations, especially when you need to connect to a niche app. Choose Make when you need more complex logic, multiple paths, or are focused on keeping costs down at high volume.
