3.1Make vs Zapier: choosing your tool
The essentials in 30 seconds
- Zapier = simplicity: linear “Zaps” (one trigger → actions), a huge catalogue of apps, immediate onboarding.
- Make = visual power: “scenarios” drawn as a diagram (modules linked by wires), rich conditional logic, a cost often better controlled at high volume.
- Transferable logic: trigger, actions, filters and mapping are found everywhere — learning one means understanding the other; both bill per operation.
Running case — Lina compares before automating
Lina, digitalisation officer in Oran, must automate the follow-up of requests received via a form: copying them into a database and notifying the team. For this simple logic between two tools, she chooses Zapier and puts the scenario live in a few minutes. But for the invoice approval circuit — with branches by amount and batch processing — she switches to Make. Same basic logic (trigger, actions, mapping), two tools depending on complexity.
This same case returns in the lesson, the diagram, the script and the 48h challenge.
1. Two references, two profiles
At the heart of automation are the tools that connect your apps to each other. Zapier bets on simplicity: linear “Zaps” (one trigger → actions), a huge catalogue of apps, immediate onboarding. Make (formerly Integromat) bets on visual power: “scenarios” shown as diagrams (modules linked by wires), rich conditional logic, and a cost often more advantageous at high volume.
The choice depends on the profile of the need. Connecting two tools fast with simple logic, without the headache? → Zapier. Complex scenarios (branches, loops, data transformations) and costs to control at scale? → Make. Lina applies exactly this rule: simple and immediate on one side, rich and high-volume on the other.
2. Operations and transferable logic
Both tools bill per operation (tasks/steps executed), with free plans to get started: each executed step consumes one operation, hence the importance of filtering early and targeting triggers (see 3.3).
Good news: the logic is transferable — trigger, actions, filters, data mapping are found everywhere. Learning one means understanding the other, and the choice is not irreversible: many start with Zapier to grasp the concepts, then move to Make when needs get more complex.
🔎 Concrete example — Guiding the choice by the need
Lina qualifies her need before clicking.
2 apps, linear logic, quick win → Zapier.
Branches, loops, large volume, controlled cost → Make.
→ Check that your apps have a connector (both cover the essentials).Reading: the complexity of the logic decides, not fashion.
Lesson: estimate the monthly volume of operations before choosing a plan.
Section vocabulary
- Zapier
- Mainstream automation tool: linear “Zaps” (trigger → actions), vast app catalogue, very simple.
Simple example: Lina connects her form to her database there in a few minutes.
What it is not: a visual scenario tool with complex branches.
Reflex: use it for a quick win between two apps.
- Make
- Visual automation tool (formerly Integromat): “scenarios” as diagrams (linked modules), rich logic, good cost/volume ratio.
Simple example: Lina builds her approval circuit with branches there.
What it is not: a simple linear connector with no condition.
Reflex: switch to it when the logic gets complex.
- Operation (task)
- Billing unit: each step/action executed by a scenario consumes one operation.
Simple example: Three executed actions = three consumed operations.
What it is not: only the price of the monthly subscription.
Reflex: filter early so you do not pay for useless actions.
- Zap / Scenario
- The automation itself: the trigger → actions sequence (Zap in Zapier, scenario in Make).
Simple example: Lina's “new form → create a row + notify the team” Zap.
What it is not: a simple account connection with no trigger.
Reflex: name each automation by its trigger and its action.
- Connector (app)
- Ready-made integration to an app (form, database, messaging) providing triggers and actions.
Simple example: Checking that Lina's apps have a connector in the chosen tool.
What it is not: a custom HTTP call to an API with no connector.
Reflex: check the connectors before choosing the tool.
In practice — Choosing between Make and Zapier
- Qualify your need: simple and fast automation (2 apps, linear logic) or complex scenario (branches, loops)?
- Simple and immediate → Zapier; powerful, visual and economical at volume → Make.
- Check that your apps have a connector in the chosen tool (both cover the essentials).
- Estimate the monthly volume of operations to stay on the free plan or choose the right tier.
Ready-to-say script — justifying your tool choice (30 s)
“For the form requests, it is simple logic between two tools: I am going with Zapier for a fast launch. For the approval circuit with branches and volumes, I am switching to Make: same trigger → actions logic, but with visual power and a better cost at volume.”
To say to your manager; note the estimated volume of operations before deciding.
Copy-paste template — tool choice sheet
NEED (simple / complex + branches?): _______________
APPS + CONNECTORS CHECKED (yes/no): _______________
ESTIMATED MONTHLY VOLUME (operations): _______________
CHOICE (Zapier = simple / Make = powerful): _______________SMB / freelancer
Simple logic between two apps: Zapier is enough for a quick win, with no complex mock-up.
SME in Oran
Lina starts with Zapier for everyday requests, then documents the move to Make as soon as branches arrive.
Digital team
Standardise: Zapier for shared linear automations, Make for scenarios with business logic.
Beginner
One single connector this week: one trigger → action Zap to understand trigger, action and mapping.
✓ Best practices
- Start with Zapier for the concepts, move to Make if needed.
- Filter early and target triggers to save operations.
- Estimate the monthly volume before choosing a plan.
✗ Common pitfalls
- Choosing a tool without checking the required connectors.
- Multiplying small redundant scenarios.
- Believing the choice is irreversible (the logic carries over).
Key takeaways
- Zapier = simplicity and a huge catalogue (linear Zaps); Make = visual power and controlled cost (scenarios).
- Both bill per operation, with a free plan to get started.
- The logic (trigger, actions, filters, mapping) is transferable from one tool to the other.
- Choose by profile: simple speed → Zapier; complex scenarios and volume → Make.
48h challenge — apply tomorrow
Qualify 1 real need (simple or complex) and check the connectors in both tools: your choice is decided.
- I can state the Zapier / Make difference without hesitating.
- I know what a billed operation is.
- I have qualified 1 need and checked its connectors.
Frequently asked questions
Make or Zapier to really get started?
If you want a quick win and immediate onboarding, Zapier is the gentlest: you pick a trigger, an action, and it is live in a few minutes. If you are comfortable with “diagram” thinking and aim for richer automations (and a better cost at volume), Make rewards the learning effort with superior power. Many start with Zapier to understand the concepts (trigger, action, mapping), then move to Make when needs get more complex. In any case, the logic you learn carries over: it is not an irreversible choice.
How do I avoid blowing my operations quota?
A few reflexes: 1) filter early to process only what matters (a filter at the start of the scenario avoids useless actions); 2) avoid triggers that fire too often (prefer a targeted trigger over an “on every change” one); 3) group processing instead of multiplying small redundant scenarios; 4) monitor consumption in the dashboard. Each executed step = one billed operation: a well-designed scenario (filters, routers) consumes far less than a scenario that runs actions for nothing. Frugality is designed from the build stage.
How do Make and Zapier differ?