GILD verdict
Choose Zapier when business teams need the widest app coverage and workflows that poll often but act rarely, since polling and checks use no tasks.
Choose Make when you need EU data zones or annual credits for seasonal peaks, and your scenarios are dense with steps you can count in advance. Run one real workflow through both meters before comparing plan prices.
Workflows that poll often cost less on Zapier, which charges only for successful actions. Make charges a credit for each module run, trigger checks included. Make keeps data in EU data zones on request, and Zapier stores it in the United States. Both are hosted visual builders that meter each step, with AI agents and an MCP server.
Choosing between Zapier and Make
Choose Zapier if
- Your workflows poll often but act rarely: Zapier triggers and checks use no tasks.
- You want the larger app catalog and assistants acting in those apps through Zapier MCP.
- You need audit logs below Enterprise: Team keeps 6 months of them.
Choose Make if
- Data must stay in the EU: Make organizations can run in the EU1 or EU2 data zone.
- You want to buy a year of credits at once: Make's annual Pro and Teams plans allocate the full year up front.
- You want MCP clients to run your own Make scenarios as tools.
Side by side
| Dimension | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|
| What is metered | Each successful action step uses 1 task, and a Lead Router step uses 5. A Code step with extended runtime uses 1 more task for every 30 seconds past the plan's allowance. Triggers, Filters, Paths, Formatter, and failed steps use none. Each Zapier MCP tool call uses 2 tasks. AI by Zapier uses 1, 3, or 5 tasks per run and per tool call, depending on model tier | Credits: 1 credit per operation for non-AI apps; each module runs once per bundle it processes, and a trigger uses 1 operation per check. Routers and error handlers use none |
| Free plan | 100 tasks a month, two-step Zaps, 15-minute polling | 1,000 credits a month; scenarios run every 15 minutes by default |
| Past the limit | Accounts created after January 2024 have pay-per-task on by default. Extra tasks cost 1.25x the base rate on annual plans and 2.5x on monthly plans. Zaps pause at 3x the plan's tasks | Scenarios stop until credits are added; extra credits cost 25% more than plan credits, bought in units of 1,000, or 10,000 at a time automatically up to the plan's own credit count |
| Annual billing | 33% off monthly; the task allowance still resets monthly on self-serve plans | Pro and Teams annual plans allocate the year's credits up front; Core keeps monthly allocations |
| AI usage | AI by Zapier at 1, 3, or 5 tasks per run and per tool call by model tier, or 1x with your own key | Make AI Agents and AI Toolkit bill credits by tokens through Make's AI Provider, or by operations with your own provider connection on paid plans |
| MCP | Zapier MCP gives MCP clients actions in 9,000+ apps at 2 tasks per successful tool call | Make MCP server exposes active, on-demand scenarios as tools; run scopes on every plan, management scopes on paid plans |
| Data location | AWS in the United States | US1, US2, EU1, or EU2 data zones; some AI features, such as Maia and OpenAI models, always process in the US |
| Audit logs | Team: 6 months. Enterprise: 1 year, with log streaming to tools such as Datadog or Splunk | Enterprise only, kept for 12 months |
| App catalog | 9,000+ apps | 3,500+ pre-built apps, plus HTTP modules and custom apps |
What practitioners report, side by side
Each product's figures come from its own practitioners, for the group you pick.
Overall signal
Zapier reads −9 and Make 0, each from its own practitioners. Zapier: 14 positive, 18 negative of 47. Make: 15 positive, 14 negative of 49.
The score counts the authors from all users that take a side, one vote each with their latest view, and is how far positive votes lead negative ones, per 100 votes, so Make's 0 rests on votes split 14 positive, 20 mixed and 14 negative. Each of Zapier's authors wrote one source here, so each source is one vote.
A lead of a fifth of the votes reads positive and a lead of half strong positive, with the same lines below zero. The dots show each source, positive, mixed, negative. Run a pilot on one live workflow to measure failed runs and the time spent fixing them.
Footprint on the AI Knowledge Work stack
Both cover the same 7 layers at the same depth. Coverage is each product's placement on this stack, as its product page shows it. Core is a job the product owns; Supports and Touches are jobs it helps with. Coverage says nothing about how well a product does them.
| Stage | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Assist1 layer | Touches 1 | Touches 1 |
| Find2 layers | Touches 2 | Touches 2 |
| Create2 layers | Touches 2 | Touches 2 |
| Analyze1 layer | Touches 1 | Touches 1 |
| Automate1 layer | Core 1 | Core 1 |
Show all 7 layers
| Layer | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Assist | ||
| AI assistant | Touches | Touches |
| Find | ||
| Web research | Touches | Touches |
| Enterprise search | Touches | Touches |
| Create | ||
| Documents | Touches | Touches |
| Meeting notes | Touches | Touches |
| Analyze | ||
| Data analysis | Touches | Touches |
| Automate | ||
| Automation | Core | Core |
What practitioners praise
Among all users, AI steps, agents & MCP and Ease of use reach 5 sources from 3 authors only for Zapier, at 9 of 13 and 8 of 10. Make needs a pilot on the same workflows before you choose on either. Both carry App coverage. It is praised in 9 of the 10 Zapier sources that discuss it, against 3 of 6 for Make. Logic without code and AI agents & MCP reach 5 sources from 3 authors only for Make, at 8 of 11 and 1 of 5. Zapier needs a pilot on the same workflows before you choose on either.
| Praised for | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|
| App coverage | 9 of 10 | 3 of 6 |
| AI steps, agents & MCP | 9 of 13 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Ease of use | 8 of 10 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Logic without code | Not a theme in its sources | 8 of 11 |
| AI agents & MCP | Not a theme in its sources | 1 of 5 |
Each count is the sources that praise a theme, or raise it as a concern, out of those that discuss it. A row pairs the two products when both carry a theme under the same or an equivalent name.
A count ending in "so far" has under 5 sources from 3 authors among all users. "Not a theme in its sources" means GILD found no theme of that name in that product's sources.
What practitioners raise as concerns
Make's sources raise Run failures more often than Zapier's. It is raised in 3 of the 7 Zapier sources that discuss it, against 5 of 7 for Make. Zapier alone has three concern themes that reach 5 sources from 3 authors. Task cost and Complex logic lead, at 12 of 15 and 8 of 9. Credit metering and Learning curve reach 5 sources from 3 authors only for Make, at 14 of 14 and 4 of 8. Zapier needs a pilot on the same workflows before you choose on either.
| Raised as a concern | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Run failures | 3 of 7 | 5 of 7 |
| Task cost | 12 of 15 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Complex logic | 8 of 9 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Governance & data | 4 of 6 | Not a theme in its sources |
| Credit metering | Not a theme in its sources | 14 of 14 |
| Learning curve | Not a theme in its sources | 4 of 8 |
17 sources
- Zapier pricing
- Zapier pricing reference (machine-readable)
- Zapier: Task usage rates
- Zapier Help: How is task usage measured in Zapier?
- Zapier: Security & compliance
- Zapier MCP docs: Usage and billing
- Zapier Help: AI by Zapier model tier pricing
- Make pricing
- Make (llms.txt overview)
- Make Help: Credits
- Make Help: Operations
- Make Help: Extra credits
- Make Help: Monthly and annual subscriptions
- Make Help: AI providers and data zones in Make
- Make Help: Audit logs
- Make Help: Make MCP server
- Make Help: Schedule a scenario