Checked September 26, 2026. USD, excluding tax. Based on published pricing and documentation, not a hands-on build. This guide covers Make.com, the platform formerly known as Integromat. Jet Admin publishes this comparison and competes with neither product directly.
Unlike most automation comparisons, this one is close to like-for-like: both products bill per action, so the units are genuinely comparable. That makes the price gap the headline.
Make's entry paid plan is $10.59 a month for 10,000 credits. Zapier's is $29.99 a month at its lowest task tier. Make is substantially cheaper per unit of work. What Zapier offers in return is a much larger connector catalogue and a gentler learning curve.
Zapier vs Make at a glance
| Zapier | Make | |
|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Tasks — one per qualifying successful action | Credits — commonly one per standard module operation |
| Free plan | 100 tasks/month; two-step Zaps only | 1,000 credits/month; two active scenarios |
| Entry paid plan | Professional $29.99/month ($19.99 annually) | Core $10.59/month ($9 annually) |
| Included at entry | Lowest task tier | 10,000 credits |
| Higher tiers add | More tasks, users, governance | Capability, not credits — all paid tiers include 10,000 |
| Minimum interval | Varies by plan | 15 min on Free, 1 min on paid |
| Connector catalogue | Very large | Large, but smaller |
| Builder style | Linear, approachable | Visual canvas, more powerful, steeper |
Sources: Zapier pricing and Make pricing, both checked September 26, 2026.
The pricing structure is the real difference
Make sells capability, not volume
This catches people out: Core at $10.59, Pro at $18.82 and Teams at $34.12 all include exactly the same 10,000 credits a month. You are not buying throughput as you move up — you are buying priority execution, larger file handling, full-text log search and team collaboration.
| Plan | Monthly | Annual equivalent | Credits | What the tier actually adds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | $0 | 1,000 | Two scenarios, 15-min interval, 5 MB files |
| Core | $10.59 | $9 | 10,000 | Unlimited scenarios, 1-min interval, 100 MB files |
| Pro | $18.82 | $16 | 10,000 | Priority execution, custom variables, log search |
| Teams | $34.12 | $29 | 10,000 | Team collaboration, shared templates |
| Enterprise | Not published | Custom | Larger files, longer log retention | |
When you outgrow 10,000 credits, buy a higher credit volume on your current plan rather than assuming you need the next tier. That is the single most useful thing to know about Make's pricing.
Zapier sells throughput by tier
Zapier's price moves with the task tier you select — 100, 2K, 10K, 100K, 1M or 2M — so the published $29.99 and $103.50 figures are entry points rather than the price you will pay at volume.
| Plan | Monthly / annual equivalent | What it adds |
|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | 100 tasks; two-step Zaps only |
| Professional | From $29.99 / $19.99 | Multi-step, webhooks, premium apps, AI fields |
| Team | From $103.50 / $69 | 25 users, shared connections, SAML SSO |
| Enterprise | Not published | Unlimited users, annual task limits, observability |
What the same automation costs on each
Illustrative from published rates. A webhook receives a form submission, enriches it, checks a condition, writes to a CRM and posts to Slack.
At 300 runs a month
| Zapier | Make | |
|---|---|---|
| Billable units per run | 4 tasks (condition uses a free Filter) | 4 credits |
| Monthly consumption | 1,200 tasks | 1,200 credits |
| Free plan sufficient? | No — and four steps exceed the two-step cap | No — 1,200 exceeds 1,000 |
| Plan needed | Professional, from $29.99 | Core, $10.59 (or $9 annually) |
Identical consumption, roughly a third of the price on Make. At this size that is the whole story.
Where the comparison gets interesting: loops
Make's iterators consume one credit per item processed, not one per module. Add a step that loops over three line items per submission and consumption rises to seven credits per run — 6,300 credits at 900 runs a month. Still inside Core's 10,000.
Zapier's equivalent multi-item handling also multiplies tasks. The lesson is the same on both platforms: count what loops, not what you see on the canvas. Estimates go wrong at iterators more often than anywhere else.
Beyond price
Connectors favour Zapier. Its catalogue is larger, and for a stack with niche SaaS tools that difference is practical rather than theoretical — a missing connector means building an HTTP module by hand.
Power favours Make. The visual canvas handles branching, iteration, aggregation and error handling more naturally than a linear builder. Complex routing is where Make earns its learning curve.
Approachability favours Zapier. If the people building automations are not technical, a linear "when this, then that" builder gets them to a working result faster.
Scheduling. Make's free plan has a 15-minute minimum for scheduled runs, though instant webhooks fire immediately — worth knowing before ruling Free out for a real workflow.
Which should you choose?
Choose Make when cost per action matters, when your scenarios involve branching, iteration or aggregation, or when you want unlimited scenarios at a low entry price. At roughly a third of Zapier's entry cost for the same work, it needs a specific reason not to win on budget.
Choose Zapier when connector coverage decides the project, when non-technical colleagues will build and maintain the automations, or when you are already inside its ecosystem and the migration cost outweighs the saving.
Check the connector list first. Price only matters if both platforms can actually reach your tools. Take your five most important integrations and confirm each one exists natively before comparing anything else.
Where Jet Admin fits
Both are automation engines that move and transform data between systems. Neither provides an interface where people review and act on results — that is the gap Jet Admin fills, over a database or API you already have.
| Priority | What to evaluate |
|---|---|
| System-to-system sync, no human step | Zapier or Make alone; Jet Admin adds nothing |
| A queue somebody reviews or approves | Automation plus an interface — cost them together |
| Many colleagues need access | Jet Admin includes unlimited users; Zapier Team caps at 25; Make adds collaboration on Teams |
| Entry paid plan | Jet Admin Pro $20/month ($16 annually); Make Core $10.59; Zapier Professional $29.99 |
Sources: Jet Admin pricing, Zapier pricing, Make pricing. These are subscription comparisons, not equivalent-capability claims.
Frequently asked questions
Is Make cheaper than Zapier?
At the entry point, substantially: $10.59 a month for 10,000 credits against Zapier's $29.99 at its lowest task tier. Both meter per action, so the comparison is unusually direct.
Why do Make's Core, Pro and Teams include the same credits?
Because those tiers sell capability — execution priority, file size, log search, collaboration — rather than volume. Buy a higher credit volume for throughput and a higher tier for features.
What counts as a credit in Make?
Most standard module operations consume one credit, though some AI and other features use different rates. Iterators are the common surprise: a loop over 50 records is not one operation.
What counts as a task in Zapier?
Each qualifying successful action. Built-in Filters, Paths, Formatter, Tables and Forms are zero-task, and triggers and polling are not charged.
Which has more integrations?
Zapier. If your stack depends on niche tools, check both catalogues against your real list before choosing on price.
Can I use either one free?
Both have permanent free plans. Zapier gives 100 tasks a month but only two-step Zaps; Make gives 1,000 credits and two active scenarios with a 15-minute minimum on scheduled runs.
Price the workflow you actually run
List your scenarios, count the modules that act, note anything that loops, and multiply by monthly runs. Because both platforms meter the same way, that one calculation prices both — and it usually shows a larger gap than the marketing pages suggest.
If the list includes automations whose only job is putting records somewhere a person can review them, build that interface directly on your data and see which steps stop being necessary.
