iGaming Retention CRM: The Gradient Boosting Playbook (2026)
Zapier vs Make in 2026: The Honest Comparison
Ivan Bolonikhin
Founder, 2pizza.team
Founder, 2pizza.team
TL;DR: Zapier is faster to start and more expensive to run. Make is cheaper at any real volume and better at complex logic. Start on Make unless you have a specific reason not to. Pricing below was checked against both vendors' own pages in September 2026, because most comparisons you will find are quoting tiers that no longer exist.
Most comparisons of these two are written by affiliates who earn on whichever link you click. We build production automation on both and charge the same either way, so we have no reason to steer you. What we do have is the experience of migrating a lot of businesses off one and onto the other, which is a different and more useful kind of bias.
What changed in 2026, and why old articles are wrong
Both vendors restructured, and the majority of comparison articles still online have not caught up. Two changes matter.
Make renamed operations to credits
The unit is the same idea, a module execution, but every guide that talks about 'operations' is now using a word Make does not. If you are reading a tutorial that says operations, it still applies, the vocabulary just moved.
Zapier removed the Starter tier
The old ladder of Free, Starter around $20, Professional around $50 is gone. Today it is Free, Professional from $19.99/month, Team from $69/month, Enterprise on request. Zapier also moved AI steps, code steps and the SDK onto the same task-based pricing as everything else. If a comparison quotes Zapier Starter, it was written before this and its cost conclusions are stale.
The actual prices, September 2026
Checked on make.com/pricing and zapier.com/pricing directly rather than repeated from elsewhere.
Make:
- Free: $0, 1,000 credits/month, 15-minute minimum interval between runs, limited active scenarios
- Core: $9/month for 10,000 credits, unlimited active scenarios, scheduling down to the minute, Make API access
- Pro: $16/month for 10,000 credits, priority execution, custom variables, full-text execution log search
- Teams: $29/month for 10,000 credits, team roles and shared templates
- Enterprise: custom, and the credit slider runs up past 8 million a month
Zapier:
- Free: $0, 100 tasks/month, two-step Zaps only
- Professional: from $19.99/month, multi-step Zaps, premium apps, webhooks
- Team: from $69/month, 25 users, shared connections, SSO
- Enterprise: custom
Both headline prices are for the smallest usage bucket and both scale on a slider, so the starting number is the least interesting part. The comparison that matters is what a real workload costs, and for that you need to understand that the two count differently.
Tasks and credits are not the same unit
This is where most cost comparisons go wrong. Zapier bills a task per action step that successfully runs. Make bills a credit per module execution, including routers, filters with an outcome, aggregators and error handlers, but not the trigger. A ten-module Make scenario running 500 times is roughly 4,500-5,000 credits, not 500. Comparing headline plan prices without normalising for this tells you nothing.
Normalise before you compare. Count the billable steps in your workflow, multiply by monthly runs, add 20% for error paths, then price that number on each platform's slider. Do that once and the decision usually makes itself.
When Zapier is genuinely the right call
It is a real product with real advantages and the honest list is short but not empty.
- You need one simple automation working today and you are not technical. Zapier's setup is roughly 15 minutes against Make's 45. For a founder whose hour is worth more than the annual price difference, that is rational.
- Your specific tool has a Zapier connector and nothing else. Integration breadth on obscure apps is still Zapier's strongest card, and no amount of cost advantage helps if the connector does not exist.
- Your volume is genuinely tiny and will stay that way. Below a few hundred runs a month the cost difference is noise.
- Someone non-technical on your team will own it. Zapier's interface forgives more.
When Make wins, which is most of the time
Everything that scales points the same direction.
Cost at volume
This is not close. Once you are past a few thousand runs a month, Make is multiples cheaper for equivalent work. The exact ratio depends on how you normalise tasks against credits, but in the migrations we have done the bill typically lands somewhere between a third and a tenth of what it was.
Complex logic
Multi-branch workflows are dramatically easier to build and, more importantly, to read six months later in Make's visual canvas. Zapier's linear model fights you as soon as the process has real branching. If your workflow has more than three or four decisions in it, this alone justifies the choice.
Error handling and data work
Make gives you proper error routes, retries, loops and data transformation as first-class features. In Zapier a lot of that becomes a code step, which works but means you now maintain code inside a no-code tool, which is the worst of both.
The exit
If you eventually outgrow Make, usually for self-hosting, data residency or cost at serious volume, moving to n8n is meaningfully easier from Make than from Zapier because the workflow logic maps more directly. Choosing Make keeps a door open.
What a migration actually costs
Most clients who arrive on Zapier move to Make during the first project. Worth being straight about the effort involved, because the savings get quoted and the work does not.
Zaps do not import. Every workflow is rebuilt, which means re-authenticating each connected app, re-mapping fields, and re-testing against real data. Budget roughly half a day per non-trivial Zap, more if the original had accumulated undocumented fixes, which they generally have. The upside is that the rebuild forces you to look at workflows nobody has reviewed in two years, and in most migrations we delete a few outright because the process behind them no longer exists.
A migration is clearly worth it when:
- Your Zapier bill has moved into the hundreds per month
- You are working around Zapier's structure with code steps or chained Zaps
- You are about to build something substantially more complex than what you have
- You need error handling that does more than email you after the fact
It is not worth it when:
- You have a handful of simple Zaps and a bill under $30/month
- The person who maintains them is non-technical and happy
- You are about to change the underlying process anyway
The case where the answer is neither
Both are the wrong tool when the work is not really integration. If you are processing high volumes of real-time events, running custom models, or need the logic to live in a repository under version control with tests, you want n8n self-hosted or plain code. Paying per credit for something that should be a service is a slow, quiet way to overspend.
The signal to watch for: you find yourself building around the platform rather than with it. Chained scenarios to dodge a limit, code modules doing the real work, a webhook fan-out that exists because the tool cannot loop the way you need. That is the platform telling you it is finished.
What we recommend
Start on Make unless one of the Zapier cases above describes you exactly. The learning curve is a weekend rather than a month, the cost advantage is material at any volume worth automating, and the migration path onward is better. If you are already on Zapier and it is working at a low bill, leave it alone until one of the migration triggers fires. Switching tools for elegance is a cost with no return.
On Zapier and wondering whether to move? We do Zapier to Make migrations as fixed-price projects, and we will tell you when the answer is to stay put. The audit at 2pizza.team/audit takes two minutes and needs no call.
Real examples from our work
Want us to look at your setup?
Free 30-min audit. We tell you what to automate first and what it would cost.
Industry guides