Short answer
Zapier and Make, the new name for Integromat, both connect apps without code, but they count usage differently: Zapier charges a task for each action that runs, while Make charges an operation for every module that starts, including each scheduled check for new data. For a simple first automation either works; the counting rules decide which plan you need.
Follow-up question When does n8n make more sense?
Last month Integromat became Make. On February 22, the Prague-based company announced a new name, a rebuilt platform and a choice of hosting in Europe or North America. Integromat stays available as a legacy product through 2022, and new customers now sign up for Make directly. If you are about to build your first automation, the question is no longer Zapier or Integromat but Zapier or Make.
Both tools follow the same basic idea. Something happens in one app (the trigger), and the tool carries out steps in other apps (the actions). Zapier calls each workflow a Zap. Make calls it a scenario, and each step in it a module. The differences that matter for a beginner are how you build, how usage is counted and what the free plans allow.
How you build
Zapier presents a Zap as a sequence: one trigger, then the actions that follow, filled in step by step. It is quick to learn and suits workflows that run in a straight line.
Make uses a visual canvas. You drag modules onto it and link them together, so a scenario looks like a small diagram. That makes branches, loops and data transformations easier to see, at the cost of a slightly steeper first hour. Make's pricing page stresses this drag-and-drop builder, and every plan, including the free one, includes it, along with custom apps and unlimited users.
How usage is counted
This is where the two differ most.
| Zapier | Make | |
|---|---|---|
| Unit of billing | Task | Operation |
| What counts | Each action that successfully moves data or does something | Each time any module starts, including the trigger |
| Does checking for new data cost anything? | No, triggers do not use tasks | Yes, the first module counts as one operation each run, even when it finds nothing |
| When you run out | Tasks are held until you upgrade or the month resets | You need more operations or a higher plan |
| Free option | A free plan, plus a 14-day trial of the Professional plan | Free plan: 1,000 operations a month, 2 active scenarios, checks no more often than every 15 minutes |
| First paid step | Several tiers by monthly tasks; 33% off when paid yearly | Core: 10,000 operations a month for $9 a month billed yearly |
Make's help center gives the counting rule plainly: the trigger module runs once per execution and counts as one operation, and each later module counts once for every item of data it processes. Its own example, three photos downloaded, resized and uploaded, uses seven operations: one for the trigger, three for resizing, three for uploading.
The same workflow in both tools
Here is a typical first automation: a small community group collects event sign-ups in a Google Sheet and wants each new person to get a welcome email and to appear in a Slack channel.
- Trigger: new row in the Google Sheet.
- Action: send a welcome email from Gmail, using the name and email from the row.
- Action: post "New sign-up: [name]" in a Slack channel.
Assume 200 sign-ups in a 30-day month.
In Zapier, the trigger is free and each sign-up uses two tasks, one per action. That is 400 tasks a month, whatever the update time (how often Zapier checks the sheet for new rows).
In Make, the two actions use 400 operations, just as in Zapier. But every scheduled check of the sheet also counts as one operation, even when no new row is found. The schedule matters:
| Make schedule | Checks per month | Action operations | Total operations | Fits the free 1,000? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Every 15 minutes | 2,880 | 400 | 3,280 | No |
| Every hour | 720 | 400 | 1,120 | No |
| Once a day | 30 | 400 | 430 | Yes |
The lesson is not that one tool is cheaper. It is that you should run the numbers for your own workflow. A daily welcome email fits Make's free plan easily; a near-instant one needs Core, which at 10,000 operations a month would cover it with room to spare.
Try it: Pick one repetitive task from your week and write it as a trigger and a list of actions. Estimate how many times a month it will run, then count Zapier tasks (actions only) and Make operations (actions plus one per scheduled check) for two different schedules.
When does n8n make more sense?
n8n (pronounced "n-eight-n") is a third option built on the same trigger-and-action idea with a node-based canvas, much like Make's. The difference is where it runs. According to its project page on GitHub, n8n follows a "fair-code" model: the source code is visible, you can host it yourself on your own server, for example with Docker, and you can add your own functions and integrations. It ships with more than 200 nodes, its name for integrations, and offers a hosted service, n8n.cloud, for people who would rather not run a server.
n8n makes more sense in three situations. First, when data must stay on infrastructure you control, for privacy rules or client agreements. Second, when volume is high: with self-hosting you pay for your server rather than for each task or operation. Third, when you need custom logic or an integration the others lack, and someone on the team is comfortable with a little code.
It makes less sense for a first automation if nobody wants to maintain a server, apply updates and keep credentials such as API keys secure. In that case, start with Zapier or Make, learn what your workflows need, and revisit n8n once you know your volumes and your constraints.
Sources
- Counting the number of operations — Make Help Center
- Plans & Pricing | Zapier — Zapier
- Pricing & Subscription Packages | Make — Make (Celonis)