Make Reviews & Product Details

Big canvas to see all your ideas as you build out your scenario with color coded module. Lots of integrations built in and the ability to use APIs for more advanced functions. Works quickly and able to see runs animated through the process. Pricing is reasonable although appears to be increasing. Support appears to be non-existent taking days to respond when I tried to ask Make AI how to use the date functions and it gave me completely bogus information and kept referring to third party modules that required additional account rather than Make's own date functions. AI appears to have improved. Overall Make works well but I wonder if n8n would work better. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Sometimes I just need to ask a question to a human that knows how to do something and I think the cheaper plans do not include any support. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Ease of use and simplicity are great factors. The user interface is friendly, and there are a wide variety of integrations, particularly for the core functionalities I need. I would say that the troubleshooting is pretty decent as well. You can make this product as technical or un-technical as you'd like. LOTS of integrations and a really good Community forum. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The error reporting is a bit technical... You have to either look up the issues or learn how to read the technical output.

Some credit usage is a little ambiguous (particularly for AI modules).

Credit use data... you can only view a month's previous data/credit usage. This can be troublesome when you are on pro or non-enterprise plans and you need to "budget" your credits. I can't see what previous month's usages have been.

Lastly, base documentation is decent but could be way more robust. Especially for the various integrations. It's alright. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Make stands out for its visual, no-code approach to automation. Creating complex, multi-step workflows feels genuinely accessible even without a development background, and the drag-and-drop interface keeps the logic easy to understand and maintain over time. It connects reliably with most tools in our stack and supports conditional logic, filters, and data transformation in a way that would otherwise require custom development. Overall, it’s a real productivity lever for operations teams. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The learning curve for the more advanced features (error handling, iterators, aggregators) can feel steep at first. The documentation is generally adequate, but it sometimes lacks concrete examples for edge cases. Still, these are minor friction points once you get through the initial setup and start working with it more regularly. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like most about Make is the flexibility to integrate the tools our team already uses. We connected Google Sheets, automated Gmail notifications, and synchronized information with Asana, which is our main project management platform.

It is not always simple at the beginning and requires some time to understand the logic of scenarios, but once the workflow is set up it becomes a very powerful system. It allows us to automate communication between teams and keep project data updated automatically instead of moving information manually. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

One challenge with Make is the learning curve when you first start building scenarios. It can take some time to understand how the logic works between modules and how data flows through the system.

Sometimes even a small configuration detail can break the scenario, and it may take time to find the exact issue. Because of that, you need to be careful when setting up workflows and testing them.

However, once you understand how the platform works, it becomes a very powerful tool for automation. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I love using Make to automate tedious manual workflows in our ad agency, especially with Asana tasks, so we can respond to issues promptly without manually checking campaigns every day. It’s a huge time saver for automating reports and data downloads, saving us many hours. Make is UI friendly and doesn’t require coding skills, which is fantastic. I find it very easy to connect services and share these connections across teams. It also saves time with debugging workflows and authentication. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

While it is user-friendly for non-coders, it still requires a learning curve for which we need to invest a lot of time. And sometimes I feel limited by not having the option to have code automations (with the help of AI) which is more flexible compared to Make. Also, it would help to have an AI assistant in Make that could easily and quickly create deterministic automations. New AI agent feature is good and almost like it but it is not deterministic, e.g. when we need to move data from one source to another one. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I think Make is pretty easy to use, especially visually. It has a lot of features and connects to many different programs, making it really versatile. I love how easy it is to set up webhooks, which we use a lot in various business processes. The ability to integrate virtually any software we use and route information through Make is really helpful. I find it visually easy to understand, making it functional for different staff members. The webhooks are fantastic because they let us work with items that don't have formal APIs, allowing us to collect and transform information easily. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

One of my biggest problems about Make is that it's not like an MCP where you can give it a task, and then it knows where to find the tools. Like, you almost have to map every single tool. And so for really difficult workflows or for a sort of generalized generic helper, it's harder to do because you have to map each tool in each scenario versus, like, an MCP you can just hand off a task, and it can run it automatically. It chooses the tools and has access to a lot of tools that you don't have to make. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Make (formerly Integromat) has been a game-changer for automating workflows at ScribaVerse, my Italian digital publishing platform. As founder, I use Make to connect our Supabase database, Telegram notifications, and content management pipelines. The visual, node-based editor makes it incredibly easy to build complex multi-step automations without writing code. I especially appreciate the wide range of native integrations and the ability to handle data transformations directly within scenarios. The execution logs and error handling features have saved us hours of debugging time. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The main downside of Make is its pricing model. At ScribaVerse, as our automation usage grew, the cost per operation started to add up. Once you exceed the free tier (1,000 operations/month), costs escalate quickly — especially for scenarios that run frequently or process large volumes of data. Compared to self-hosted alternatives like n8n, Make becomes expensive at scale. It would be great to see more generous free tier limits or a flat-rate pricing option for small businesses and indie publishers. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like the many integrations and possibilities with Make, especially that I can now do complex things with an if-else branching. The graphical editor is also a plus, as it allows me to easily drag elements in and design complex processes visually. I particularly like the wide selection of over 3000 integrations. It is really helpful that the integrations are native, so I can use them without complicated API documentation or codes. I can simply select what I want, and Make executes it. This makes everything very simple and effective. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It took forever for this EFLs branch, so it could have been partly a product 3 years ago, why we only recently managed it is a mystery to me. So you could be faster in the development of new modules and integrations. Yes, and in general, of course, there could also be more deep integration involved. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

What I like most about Make.com is the visual workflow builder. It makes automation much easier to understand because you can clearly see how data moves between apps, filters, routers, and other logic steps as the workflow runs. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The main downside is that as workflows become more advanced, they can be harder to maintain if you don’t structure them well from the start. Make is powerful, but that also means beginners may need some time to understand and manage scenarios properly. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.