Zapier vs Make: pricing, usage, and who can maintain it

It's Tuesday afternoon and the Zapier renewal email is sitting in your inbox. You set up a few Zaps last year: web form leads go into a spreadsheet, you get a text, and the customer gets a thank-you email. They work. But the bill has gone up twice since you added steps, and a friend who runs a cleaning company tells you she does the same thing on Make for a fraction of the price. You want to know if switching is worth an afternoon, and whether you'll be able to fix it yourself when it breaks.

This is Zapier vs Make from the owner's side: what each plan costs, how each one counts what you use, what happens when you hit the limit, and which one a non-technical owner can actually maintain. The prices come from Zapier's pricing page and Make's pricing page. I checked both on September 25, 2026. Both companies change their plans often, so check again before you buy.

Zapier vs Make in one table

The headline is obvious: at the entry level, Make gives you far more units for less money. The fine print is where Zapier vs Make gets decided, because a task and a credit don't measure the same thing.

How each one counts what you use

Zapier counts tasks. Its pricing page says a task is counted "whenever Zapier successfully completes a unit of work for you." Triggers don't count. Polling for new data doesn't count. Zapier's built-in tools (Formatter, Filter, Paths, Delay, Looping and a handful of others) don't count either. What counts is each real action that succeeds: a row added, an email sent, a contact created.

Make counts credits. Its pricing page says "each module action in your scenario, like adding a Google Sheet row or fetching Gmail account data, counts as one credit." Two details on Make's side matter for a small business:

• The trigger counts. Make's help page on operations says trigger modules "run once to check for or retrieve data," and that run is one operation. A scenario scheduled to check a form every 15 minutes is spending credits on the checks themselves, including quiet nights. Where an app offers an instant trigger (a webhook that fires when something happens), use it.
• Lists multiply. The same help page says each item moving through a scenario gets its own module run: "adding 5 contacts to a sheet requires 5 runs, resulting in 5 operations." A scenario that loops over twenty line items uses twenty credits at that step.

Make does leave its routers and error-handling modules out of the count, according to the pricing page.

The same workflow priced both ways

Here's one ordinary workflow. A lead fills out your website form. The automation adds a row to your spreadsheet, creates a contact in your CRM, texts you, and emails the lead a confirmation. One trigger, four actions.

That's arithmetic from each company's own definitions, and it's why owners who switch usually see a smaller bill. Make's credits are cheap, and its base plan includes a lot of them.

One warning before you move everything. A scenario that checks for new data every minute runs its trigger about 43,000 times in a 30-day month, so the schedule matters as much as the lead count. Set the schedule to what the work needs, and look at your usage report after the first week.

Which one can you maintain yourself

If you build your own automations, this matters more than the price.

A Zap reads like a list. It runs top to bottom: when this happens, do this, then this. The step names are in plain English, and most popular apps have a ready-made connection. When something breaks, you open the Zap, find the step with the error, reconnect the account or fix the field, and turn it back on. Most owners can handle that without help.

A Make scenario reads like a diagram: a canvas of connected circles, with routers that split the flow, iterators that break a list into items, and aggregators that put them back together. That's more power in one screen, and branching logic that would take three Zaps can fit in one scenario. It also assumes you're comfortable watching data move from one module to the next and mapping fields by hand. Owners can learn it. The risk I watch for is the business where one person understands the scenarios, and when that person is out, nobody touches them.

Here's how I'd sort it:

If you're also weighing n8n, I compared it with Zapier in n8n vs Zapier.

When neither is the right answer

Both tools are good at moving data from one app to another. They get awkward when the process carries real business rules: a quote that changes with the answers on the form, leads routed by town and job type, a follow-up sequence that stops the moment the customer replies. You end up with a stack of workarounds that only the person who built them can follow. I cover where that line falls in Zapier vs custom automation.

That's the kind of work I build. For a freight forwarder, I set up intake for quote, import, export, and general inquiries, so each request arrives sorted instead of landing in one shared inbox. For a mortgage professional, I built a custom engine that scans, scores, and delivers early-intent leads, which no off-the-shelf connector was going to do. Builds start at $500 one-time, then a flat monthly from $99 after an included run-in period, cancellable. Part of that monthly is that I'm the one who notices when a step fails. Plenty of times a $12 or $20 plan and an afternoon of setup is the better choice, and I'll tell you when that's the case.

Switching from Zapier to Make without breaking anything

If the table says Make, move one workflow at a time:

1. List every Zap you have and note what it does and how often it runs. Turn off the ones nobody uses.
2. Pick the busiest workflow, since that's where the savings are, and rebuild it in Make. Use an instant trigger if the app has one.
3. Run both side by side for a week, with the Make version writing to a test sheet, and compare the results.
4. Add an error alert in Make that emails or texts a real person.
5. Check the credit usage after a week, then switch the Zap off.
6. Repeat for the next workflow. Keep Zapier running until the last one has moved.

The step people skip is number 4. The automation works fine until it doesn't, and nobody notices it stopped.

What stays human

Neither tool should decide which lead gets a call back first, what a job is worth, or how to answer an upset customer. Automation is for copying, routing, and reminding, so the right information reaches you fast. The judgment stays with you, and so does looking at a failed run and deciding whether it matters. On a small team that's usually the owner or one trusted person. Name that person before you build anything.

Questions

Is Make cheaper than Zapier?

At small-business volumes, usually yes. Make's Core plan was $12 a month billed monthly for 10,000 credits when I checked, and Zapier's entry Pro tier was $29.99 billed monthly for 750 tasks. Make counts the trigger and every item that passes through a module, so work out your real usage before you compare.

Is Make harder to use than Zapier?

For most non-technical owners, yes, at first. Zapier's builder is a plain list of steps. Make's visual canvas handles branching and lists better, and it takes longer to learn.

Can I try both before paying?

Yes. Zapier offers a 14-day trial of Pro with no card required, according to its pricing page. Make's free plan includes up to 1,000 credits a month and two active scenarios, which is enough to rebuild one workflow and watch it run.

If you'd like a second opinion on which of your workflows belongs where, or whether any of them need a tool at all, book the free 20 minute process audit. We'll look at your week and pick the one step worth fixing first.