Automation is often presented as a quick win: connect a few tools, save time, reduce manual work. In reality, choosing the right automation platform is rarely that simple. Companies differ in size, process maturity, technical capabilities, and long-term goals — and those differences matter far more than feature checklists. At Seamless Automation, we work daily with businesses that rely on both Zapier and Make. Some are just starting their automation journey, others are scaling complex systems that touch sales, marketing, operations, and data. This article is not about declaring a winner. It’s about understanding when each platform makes sense — and why.

In Part 1, we focus on the business perspective: company size, team structure, collaboration, costs, and common decision-making traps. In Part 2, we’ll go deeper into technical complexity, maintainability, and long-term scalability.

Table of Contents:

1. Short context: Zapier and Make in business use
2. Why many companies start with Zapier — and why that makes sense?
3. Company size, process maturity, and automation expectations
4. Zapier or Make for citizen developers vs technical teams
5. Team collaboration and access management
6. The real cost of automation: pricing vs total cost of ownership
7. Common mistakes companies make when choosing Zapier or Make

Short context: Zapier and Make in business use

Zapier and Make are both well-established automation platforms designed to connect applications and automate workflows without building everything from scratch. Zapier is widely known for its accessibility and clean, user-friendly experience. It enables teams to automate common tasks quickly, often without technical background. Make (formerly Integromat), on the other hand, is known for its flexibility and visual approach to building more complex automation scenarios.

At Seamless Automation, we actively use and support both platforms. Many of our clients run critical processes on Zapier, others on Make. “We don’t treat this as a tool-versus-tool debate,” explains Kris Zielinski, Founder of Seamless Automation and expert in Sales & Marketing Automation, CRM Integrations & Development. “Our role is to support our clients and inform them about what works best in specific situations.”

That approach, grounded in real implementation experience, is the foundation of this comparison.

Why many companies start with Zapier — and why that makes sense?

One of Zapier’s biggest advantages is brand recognition. For companies with limited exposure to automation, Zapier is often the first name they encounter. As a result, many businesses don’t ask “Which automation platform should we choose?” They come saying, “We’re using Zapier and need help making it work.”

“This decision usually happens before we’re even involved,” says Kris Zielinski. “Clients often arrive with Zapier already selected. They see it as a safe, proven starting point — and in many cases, they’re right.”

Zapier fits particularly well in organizations with:

• low or medium process maturity,
• limited internal automation experience,
• a need for quick wins rather than architectural depth.

Importantly, starting with Zapier isn’t a mistake. It’s often a practical, low-risk way to begin automating repetitive work and to build confidence around automation as a concept. In many client engagements, Seamless Automation starts by optimizing or extending existing Zapier workflows — and only later discusses whether some processes should be moved elsewhere.

Company size, process maturity, and automation expectations

The real dividing line between Zapier and Make is rarely company size alone. It’s process maturity and expectations.

Small businesses and early-stage teams often focus on automating individual tasks: syncing leads between tools, sending notifications, updating records. At this stage, automation is about convenience and speed.

As companies grow into scale-ups or more structured organizations, automation expectations change. Processes become interconnected, dependencies appear, and errors start to have visible business consequences. This is where the difference between automating a task and designing an automation architecture becomes critical.

“At some point, simplicity stops being an advantage,” Kris notes. “When automation becomes part of your core operations, you’re no longer connecting apps — you’re building systems. That moment doesn’t arrive at the same time for every company. But when it does, the limitations of overly simplified approaches become visible.”

Zapier or Make for citizen developers vs technical teams

Zapier is widely regarded as a great tool for citizen developers — business users who want to automate processes without deep technical knowledge. Its interface is intuitive, opinionated, and designed to guide users toward common patterns. Make takes a different approach. It offers more freedom, more control, and fewer guardrails — which means it rewards experience, but can feel overwhelming at first.

“For beginners and business users, Zapier is usually easier,” says Kris. “But in the long run, what really matters is not who built the automation or which tool they used. What matters is whether the process works and delivers business value.”

This distinction becomes important when seemingly simple processes turn out to be more complex than expected — which happens often. A workflow that looks trivial on paper may require conditional logic, data transformations, or exception handling once real data flows through it. In those cases, the initial comfort of simplicity can turn into friction.

Team collaboration and access management 

Both Zapier and Make support team collaboration, but they approach it differently. Zapier requires a dedicated Teams plan to add multiple users and manage access properly — a plan that comes with a significantly higher cost. Make, by contrast, allows multi-user collaboration even on its Free plan. From an agency or implementation partner perspective, this difference is not theoretical.

“When we work on a project, several specialists are often involved,” explains Kris. “With Make, we can add our team members directly without sharing client credentials. That removes security concerns.”

For companies working with external partners or internal cross-functional teams, access management becomes a practical — and sometimes costly — consideration.

The real cost of automation: pricing vs total cost of ownership

When comparing Zapier and Make, pricing is often misunderstood. Zapier emphasizes that tasks are counted mainly for actions using integrated apps, while other operations are effectively free. On paper, this sounds attractive. In practice, costs behave differently — especially at scale.

“The unit cost of a single task in Zapier is simply much higher,” says Kris. “When you work with complex processes and high execution volume, those costs grow very quickly.”

On the other hand, Make is not automatically the lower-cost option in every scenario. For simple, low-volume automations, Zapier can still be cost-effective.

The real cost of automation includes more than subscription fees. The following should also be taken into account:

• costs of errors and failed executions,
• time spent optimizing inefficient workflows,
• rebuilding automations that outgrow their original design.

Total cost of ownership only becomes visible over time — and that’s where early decisions matter most.

Common mistakes companies make when choosing Zapier or Make

Across dozens of projects, the same mistakes appear repeatedly:

• Choosing a tool instead of solving a problem. Automation should serve a clear business goal, not the other way around.
• Underestimating future complexity. What works for ten transactions a day may fail at a thousand.
• Ignoring maintenance and evolution. Automations are not “set and forget”. They require monitoring, updates, and refinement.

“These mistakes are rarely technical. They’re strategic. Companies focus on speed instead of sustainability,” Kris emphasizes.

***

Zapier and Make are both powerful platforms — and both have a place in modern automation stacks. Zapier often shines as an accessible entry point, while Make becomes increasingly valuable as complexity grows.

In Part 2, we’ll look at what happens when automations move beyond simple workflows: data structures, conditional logic, error handling, maintenance, and the realities of scaling automation systems over time.

That’s where the differences between Zapier and Make become impossible to ignore.

Want to discuss a solution right away?