Zapier vs. Make 2026: Task-Based vs. Credit-Based Automation Pricing, Compared

Zapier and Make (formerly Integromat) both do the same broad job — connect apps and automate the handoffs between them — and both now market AI features on top of that core (Zapier's "AI by Zapier," Agents, and Chatbots; Make's AI-app integrations inside its scenario builder). Where they genuinely diverge is billing structure: Zapier counts a task every time a Zap step runs, while Make counts an operation (which can be more or less granular depending on how a scenario is built) against a monthly credit pool. That difference matters more than any feature checklist, because it changes which tool is cheaper for the exact same workflow depending on how it's built.

This is a comparison piece, not a duplicate of our broader automation coverage — for a wider tour of automation tools across categories (project trackers, email, CRM, etc.), see our 15-workflow automation roundup and enterprise workflow automation guide. This piece is narrowly about Zapier vs. Make head-to-head.

A note on sourcing: every price, plan name, and limit below was checked directly against Zapier's pricing page (zapier.com/pricing) on July 28, 2026 and Make's pricing page (make.com/en/pricing), also checked July 28, 2026 — Make's page returned a Cloudflare bot-challenge to a plain automated request but rendered normally in a browser-based fetch; the figures below come from that successful render. Confirm current pricing directly on each vendor's site before you buy — both tools re-tier and reprice frequently, and task/operation math is workflow-specific.

The core pricing-model difference

Zapier bills by task: every time a Zap step executes (an action firing after a trigger), that's one task. A simple two-step Zap running once uses one task; a five-action Zap firing on the same trigger burns through tasks faster even though it's "one automation" conceptually.

Make bills by operation, converted to credits: each module (step) that runs in a scenario consumes a credit-equivalent operation, and pricing is denominated in credits per month rather than a raw task count. Make's own comparison materials generally position its per-operation cost as cheaper than Zapier's per-task cost at moderate-to-high volume, largely because Make's visual builder often lets you accomplish in fewer discrete operations what would take more Zap steps — but this depends heavily on how a specific workflow is built, and isn't a fixed ratio you can apply blindly.

What this means practically: don't compare Zapier's "750 tasks" against Make's "10,000 operations" as if the numbers are directly equivalent — they're not measuring the same unit, and a workflow's actual operation/task count depends on how many steps it takes to build the same automation in each tool.

Pricing side by side

Zapier (task limits, annual pricing shown — Zapier's page states annual billing runs "33% off the monthly rate"):

Plan	Price	Tasks/month
Free	$0	100 tasks, two-step Zaps only
Professional	$19.99/mo (annual) / $29.99/mo (monthly)	750 tasks
Professional (next tier)	$39.00/mo (annual) / $58.50/mo (monthly)	1,500 tasks
Team	$69.00/mo (annual) / $103.50/mo (monthly)	2,000 tasks, 25 users included
Team (top tier shown)	$3,999.00/mo (annual) / $5,999.00/mo (monthly)	2,000,000 tasks
Enterprise	Custom	Custom annual task limits, unlimited users

Make (annual pricing shown, described as "Save 15% or more" vs. monthly):

Plan	Price	Operations/credits per month
Free	$0	Up to 1,000 credits, 2 active scenarios, 15-min minimum interval
Core	$12/mo	10,000 credits, unlimited active scenarios, 1-min interval
Pro	$21/mo (marked "Recommended")	10,000 credits, priority execution, custom variables
Teams	$38/mo	10,000 credits, full-text log search, team management
Enterprise	Custom	Custom functions, on-premises agents, 24/7 support

Two things worth noting: Make's Core/Pro/Teams tiers all start at the same 10,000-credit allowance — the price increase between them buys execution priority and admin features, not more raw automation volume, similar to how Surfer's Standard/Pro tiers share a document cap (see our Semrush vs. Surfer comparison for that same pattern in a different category). And Zapier's free tier is limited to "two-step Zap workflows only" — meaning any automation needing a third action requires a paid plan, regardless of your task volume.

AI features on each platform

Zapier advertises "Zapier Agents" and "Zapier Chatbots" as available features, plus "Zapier Canvas" (a visual workflow-planning tool) and "Zapier MCP." Paid plans add what Zapier's page calls "AI by Zapier" for workflow automation, along with "AI fields" and "AI enrichment" inside Zapier Tables. The page doesn't break out AI features as a separately-gated tier the way ClickUp does with its Brain² add-on (see our ClickUp AI review) — AI capability appears to scale with plan tier rather than being sold as a standalone line item.

Make integrates AI primarily through its library of AI-app connectors (OpenAI, Anthropic, and others) inside the visual scenario builder, rather than a dedicated first-party "Make AI" product — you build AI calls into a scenario the same way you'd connect any other app. This is a structurally different approach from Zapier's named AI products: Make treats AI as one more module type in the same builder, not a separate feature tier.

Which one fits which team

High-frequency, low-complexity automations (a form submission triggers one Slack message, one CRM update) tend to favor whichever tool's pricing math works out cheaper per execution for that specific shape of workflow — this genuinely requires running the numbers on your own use case rather than trusting either vendor's general "we're cheaper" positioning, since Make's operation-vs-Zapier's-task comparison isn't a fixed ratio.

Complex, branching automations with many conditional steps often favor Make's visual scenario builder, which is generally regarded as more capable for complex branching logic within a single scenario compared to Zapier's more linear Zap structure — though this is a workflow-design observation, not a benchmarked claim, and your mileage will vary by use case.

Teams that want the simplest possible starting point and don't mind paying more per unit of automation as they scale tend to start with Zapier, given its larger app-integration marketplace and more mainstream documentation/community support. Teams optimizing hard for cost at moderate-to-high automation volume tend to evaluate Make more seriously once Zapier's task costs start adding up.

Honest limitations

We could not independently verify Make's specific operation-to-Zapier-task cost ratio for any given workflow — this depends entirely on how many steps a specific automation takes in each tool's builder, and neither vendor publishes an apples-to-apples conversion.

Zapier's task-tier pricing table on its own page shows large gaps between named tiers (750 tasks to 1,500 tasks to 2,000 tasks at the Team level, then jumping straight to 2,000,000 tasks) — the intermediate volume tiers between "small team" and "enterprise-scale" aren't clearly laid out on the page as checked.

Neither platform's free tier is viable for a real production automation workflow beyond testing — Zapier's free tier caps at two-step Zaps, and Make's free tier limits you to 2 active scenarios with a 15-minute minimum trigger interval, both of which rule out anything beyond light personal use.

Check current Zapier pricing · Check current Make pricing — confirm live task/credit limits and run your own workflow math before you buy.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Make cheaper than Zapier?

It depends entirely on how your specific workflow is built — Make bills by operation-based credits and Zapier bills by task, and these aren't directly comparable units. Make's entry paid tier ($12/mo for 10,000 credits) has a lower headline price than Zapier's entry paid tier ($19.99/mo annual for 750 tasks), but a workflow that takes many operations to build in Make could still cost more per month than the same workflow built efficiently in Zapier, or vice versa. Run the numbers on your actual workflow before assuming either is cheaper.

Which is better for complex, branching workflows?

Make's visual scenario builder is generally regarded as more capable for complex branching logic within a single automation, compared to Zapier's more linear Zap structure. This is a workflow-design characteristic, not a benchmarked performance claim.

Does either platform have a genuinely free plan I can build real automations on?

Both free plans are best treated as testing tiers rather than production-ready: Zapier's free plan restricts you to two-step Zaps (100 tasks/month), and Make's free plan allows only 2 active scenarios with a minimum 15-minute trigger interval and 1,000 credits/month.

What's the cheapest paid entry point for each?

Zapier's cheapest paid tier is $19.99/month billed annually (750 tasks). Make's cheapest paid tier is $12/month (10,000 credits, no annual commitment required at that price per the page as checked). These aren't equivalent in automation volume — see the task-vs-credit note above before comparing them directly.

The Bottom Line

Zapier and Make aren't competing on the same axis as much as their shared "automation platform" label suggests — Zapier optimizes for breadth of integrations and a simpler, more linear building experience; Make optimizes for cost efficiency at volume and more powerful branching logic inside a single scenario, at the cost of a steeper learning curve. Neither vendor's pricing page lets you cleanly translate the other's units into your own workflow's real cost, so the responsible move is to prototype your actual highest-volume automation in both free tiers before committing a paid plan to either one.

Check current Zapier pricing · Check current Make pricing — confirm live limits before you buy.