What do users say about Make?

It integrates with every service we see to automate. My connecting it to Claude, we're able to build, adapt and troubleshoot sophisticated automations without having to turn ourselves into developers. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

For me, it's hard to find something to dislike. If pushed, I'd say that you really need to take the Make University courses to get the best from the tool, and understand concepts such as credit usage, arrays, and logic flows. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I really like the Make interface and that it connects with the different applications that are useful to me. It has a simple and easy-to-understand interface, and the initial setup was very easy. I use it to create modules that help me with my daily and work tasks, and to set up projects and automate the monthly sending of files to my clients. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

At the moment, nothing Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like Make’s visual workflow builder and the flexibility to connect different services. I use it to automate WhatsApp messages, Google Sheets updates, emails, and webhooks, saving time on repetitive tasks. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Some integrations lack fields available in the service’s API, so I need workarounds. Troubleshooting complex scenarios can also take time, and credit usage isn’t always easy to predict. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Make helps me make everyday tasks more efficient and gives staff more time to handle complex issues. I like the variety of integrated apps, the ability to use our AI to build automations, and how easy Make is to use. It was very easy to set up. Make connects to Podio better for what I need than Zapier: I can create workspaces, apps, and workflows, and read workspace content using ChatGPT. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The only thing is testing. I have to burn through credits just to test things work, which can be quite costly during the testing stage. Maybe a testing zone could help, though I’m not sure if that’s possible. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I find Make's user interface very easy to use, simple to manage, and it doesn't take much time to learn. Additionally, the integration with Claude is particularly useful, as it allows for easy bug fixing and implementing automations directly from the cloud without having to open multiple windows for debugging. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I would probably give more space to the coding part to make it more customizable. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The visual canvas. When you're building an automation that crosses 5–6 apps, being able to see the whole flow at a glance is genuinely useful, it makes debugging much faster and onboarding clients way easier than pasting a wall of code or config.

The flexibility is also a good point, you can do things that most no-code tools would force you to work around, custom HTTP requests, data transformation with functions, error handling per module. It's not perfect but it covers 90% of what a typical agency workflow needs.

And the pricing model is fair at the start. Compared to Zapier, you get a lot more operations per euro before hitting a wall. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The execution logs are painful to read when something breaks in a complex scenario. Error messages are often vague and you end up having to re-run manually just to trace the issue. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The visual scenario builder is the main reason I stay. I can see an entire process on one canvas - routers, filters, error handlers - instead of reading through code, so a workflow is much easier to hand over to someone else or to pick up again months later.

The execution history is the part I use most. Every run stores the input and output of every single module, so when something breaks I know within a minute which step failed and exactly what data it received. Most automation tools just tell you the run failed and leave you guessing.

The app catalog covers most of what I need, and when it doesn't, the generic HTTP and webhook modules mean I'm never actually blocked - I've connected internal APIs that will never have an official integration. Between scheduling, iterators and aggregators, data stores and error handling, a lot of work that would otherwise need a small server and someone maintaining it just doesn't need one. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Pricing is per operation, and it ends up shaping how you build more than it should. A scenario that polls frequently burns through a plan fast, so I design around the operations counter - batching, webhooks instead of polling, filtering as early as possible - rather than around what would be the clearest way to solve the problem. Cost is also hard to predict before a scenario is actually running in production.

Large scenarios get hard to manage. Past a certain number of modules the canvas slows down and becomes difficult to navigate, and there is no real version control. You can export a blueprint, but there is no diff between versions and no clean separation between development and production, so testing a change usually means cloning a scenario and remembering to keep both copies in sync.

Error handling is capable but entirely manual - every route needs its own handler, and it is easy to ship something that fails quietly until you notice the data missing days later. Deep data mapping is the other rough edge: working with arrays nested inside arrays takes more trial and error in the mapping panel than it should. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

It is an important tool for the interconnection of different channels and their automation, the interface is clear and intuitive Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Its prices are too excessive and not competitive in international markets, making the cost of configuration and integration high. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

Make.com, as an automation tool, is easier to configure than some others (n8n, for example). I really like its simple UI design. Recently, I discovered its academy courses (100% free BTY), and they’re worth trying. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I run out of my free credits pretty quickly, and I wish the monthly free credits were a bit more generous. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

I like the versatility of Make and the large number of connections it offers. I have never had problems connecting a service in the various projects I have implemented, which really demonstrates its versatility. Additionally, the plan for Nonprofits is super useful, as it provides us with a good base of credits to start operating. I also find the strong community that seeks to solve common problems valuable. We lean towards Make instead of other tools like n8n because we feel that the learning curve has fewer frictions and its initial setup was quite simple. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.

The AI, when it comes to creating or reformulating formulas, didn't work so well for me. It offered me things that, when I pasted them, had errors. So I end up using an external AI to fix formulas. Review collected by and hosted on G2.com.