A guide published on the Zapier website examines the pricing model of the automation platform Make (formerly Integromat), which is based on monthly credits and operations, alongside a comparison with Zapier's pricing model. The author of the guide compares Make's model to 2009 mobile phone plans, in which users were billed for every text message sent rather than under a fixed monthly payment for unlimited messaging. In this model, every step in an automation costs a credit, including triggers, requiring users to remain aware of their quota consumption at all times while designing and building workflows. The guide reviews how the credit model works, what each plan includes, where the model works in the user's favor and where it does not, and compares the pricing methods to help teams understand what fits the way they build automations.
What is Make and its key features
Make is a visual automation platform that allows users to build workflows called scenarios by connecting modules on a visual canvas. Users drag and drop steps, connect various applications such as Gmail, Slack, Google Sheets, and more than 3,500 other apps, and run automations on a schedule or from a trigger. The system interface allows adding routers, filters, and custom logic. In addition, more advanced users can run code in JavaScript or Python via the Make Code app. The platform also offers artificial intelligence features, including AI agents, an AI toolkit, and connections to over 350 AI apps, to integrate these capabilities into workflow scenarios.
How the credit- and operation-based pricing model works
Make's pricing is determined by the number of operations executed each month, measured in credits. Most steps in a scenario count as one credit: a step that triggers or executes when a scenario runs draws down one credit from the account balance. However, there are several exceptions: router modules and error-handling modules (Rollback, Break, Resume, Commit, and Ignore) do not cost any credits.
Triggering a workflow costs one credit, and each subsequent action requires an additional credit—such as adding a row to a spreadsheet in Google Sheets or fetching data from Gmail. The guide gives an example of a five-step scenario running 100 times a month that consumes 500 credits, as well as a 20-step scenario running 500 times that burns through 10,000 credits, even in cases where no new data is found during the run.
Certain actions in the system charge more than a single credit. For example, the Make Code app consumes two credits for each second of execution time. AI-related actions may consume a higher number of credits, depending on the specific feature invoked. The exact costs for each module type are detailed on Make's pricing page and help docs, to allow cost estimation before building begins.
The more steps a scenario has and the more frequently it runs, the faster the monthly credit allowance is depleted. If the quota runs out, scenarios stop until the next billing cycle, unless the user upgrades the plan or purchases an additional credit pack, depending on their plan. Paid plans offer savings of around 25% or more when choosing annual billing compared to paying monthly.
Overview of Make's pricing plans
The guide details the primary plans offered by Make, noting that prices may change from time to time:
- Free plan: Includes up to 1,000 credits per month with a limit of only 2 active scenarios. The plan includes the visual workflow builder, access to over 3,500 apps, the use of routers and filters, and a 15-minute minimum interval between scheduled scenario runs. This plan is suitable for learning the product and testing simple automations, though the active scenario cap restricts users seeking to run more than two workflows at once.
- Core plan ($12 per month billed annually): Provides 10,000 credits per month. It includes all features of the free plan, alongside access to the Make API, higher data transfer limits, unlimited active scenarios, and the ability to schedule runs down to a 1-minute interval. This plan is aimed at individuals or freelancers with moderate automation needs.
- Pro plan ($21 per month billed annually): Supplies 10,000 credits per month with the option to purchase additional credit packs. It includes everything in Core, plus full-text execution log search, custom variables, and priority scenario execution so runs execute faster during peak hours.
- Teams plan ($38 per month billed annually): Includes 10,000 credits per month with expansion capability. It contains all Pro features and adds team collaboration, scenario template creation and sharing, and managing team roles.
- Enterprise plan (custom pricing): Delivers a custom credit allocation and capacity, and includes all Teams features along with advanced security, 24/7 enterprise support, access to the Value Engineering team, enterprise app integrations, and custom functions. This plan is aimed at organizations requiring governance, compliance, and scale.
On most paid plans, credit volume can be expanded in tiers of 20,000, 40,000, 80,000, and beyond. Make's website features a slider tool that allows calculating the exact price based on the required credit volume.
Target audiences: Who Make is best for and who it is less suited for
According to the guide, Make appeals most to users who want to work close to process logic: people who prefer seeing every connection laid out visually on the canvas, adding custom code when needed, and building scenarios containing branching and loops in ways a simple trigger-and-action chain cannot accommodate. Solo operators, freelancers, and small technical teams with a defined number of workflows find the credit model relatively transparent, since the number of steps is known in advance and makes cost estimation straightforward. In addition, the free tier allows testing and experimenting with the system before committing.
Conversely, Make is less suitable for users who do not want to devote attention to managing usage. Because every trigger consumes a credit, high-frequency scenarios can push users into higher price tiers or require continuous monitoring of the meter. Teams looking for automations that run without tracking credit consumption may find Zapier's task-based model simpler to work with. Zapier's task model charges for completed actions rather than individual steps.
Furthermore, Make has fewer native integrations compared to Zapier (3,500+ vs. 9,000+), so if their stack includes niche applications or legacy systems, users will want to confirm Make supports them before committing.
Pricing and feature comparison: Make vs. Zapier
On paper, Make appears to be the more affordable option: its Core plan starts at $12 per month, whereas Zapier's lowest paid plan starts at $19.99 per month. However, the sticker price does not tell the whole story because the billing models operate differently: Make bills for triggers, while Zapier bills solely for completed tasks.
For teams automating across a broad variety of tools, Zapier's integration library is considerably wider (over 9,000 apps compared to a few thousand in Make). Another key difference involves the learning curve: Make's workflow builder features a steep learning curve, so much so that Make's own support team suggested users complete roughly 19 hours of training within Make Academy before attempting to build workflows in a production environment. For organizations lacking the relevant technical background, this can lead to the need to recruit or hire a dedicated automation specialist, an expense that can quickly surpass the savings on monthly subscription fees.
Consequently, the guide notes that Make is suited for technical users who have the time to master the canvas and the discipline to monitor usage, whereas for most teams needing quick automations across a broad app ecosystem without a dedicated specialist, Zapier represents a more suitable choice. Ultimately, Make's pricing is structured around a trade-off between more granular control over cost per operation and the need for greater attention to quota management. Miscalculation can cause workflows to halt mid-month or lead to an unexpected increase in expenses. The article was originally published in March 2026 and was most recently updated in November 2026.