For people arriving from Integromat
Integromat vs Zapier,
from a migrator’s side
Most comparisons of these two are written for someone choosing from scratch. That is not you. You built something in Integromat, it is Make now, and you are weighing whether Zapier is the calmer place to be. That is a different question, and the honest answer depends far more on what your scenarios do than on either feature list.
Want to know what this costs in your shop?
I will work out your three biggest time sinks, in hours and dollars. Free, in writing, within 72 hours.
No newsletter, no sequence. You keep the analysis either way.
Tim Muenzel
builds and runs the systems himself
What you gain by moving
Reach and calm. Zapier connects to more services than anything else in the category, its interface hides more of the machinery, and non-technical colleagues can maintain a Zap in a way they generally cannot maintain a forty-module scenario. If the reason you are looking is that only one person understands the current setup, that alone can be worth the move.
What you give up
Two things, and both hurt in the same place. First, price per unit of work: Zapier bills per task and is typically the more expensive of the two at comparable volume, so a migration that fixes comprehension often raises the bill. Second, expressive power: iterators, aggregators, real error routes and the kind of branching a Make scenario handles natively are either clumsy or absent, so complex scenarios do not port one to one. They get rebuilt simpler, which is sometimes an improvement and sometimes a loss of behaviour nobody documented.
The migration trap
People plan the rebuild and forget the archaeology. Your scenarios encode years of decisions that exist nowhere else: which cases are skipped, which customer is special, what happens on a failure at three in the morning. None of that survives a port unless somebody reads it out first. Before you compare a single feature, spend a day writing down what each scenario is supposed to achieve and what breaks if it stops. That document is the actual migration, and it also tells you which scenarios not to move at all.
The option neither vendor mentions
If the pain is that a process your business depends on lives somewhere you cannot test, review or hand over, then moving it between two tools with that same property does not solve anything; it just changes the invoice. That is not an argument against either product, both are good, and most automations should stay in one. It is an argument for being honest about which one or two of your processes are not automations at all any more, but software you happen to have built in a canvas.
Common questions, answered straight
Which is cheaper, Make or Zapier?
At comparable volume, Make is usually cheaper per unit of work, because it prices per operation rather than per task and because its plans include more headroom. Zapier tends to win on breadth of connections and on how easy it is for a non-specialist to maintain.
Can I import my Integromat scenarios into Zapier?
No. There is no import path between them. Complex scenarios get rebuilt, and usually rebuilt simpler, which is why writing down what they do before you start matters more than the choice itself.
Zapier offered me free months when Automate.io shut down. Does that still apply?
That offer was specific to the Automate.io shutdown in 2022 and is unrelated to Make. Do not plan a migration around a promotion; plan it around what your processes actually cost you per year in either place.
Should I move at all?
Often no. If the current setup works and one person understands it, write down what it does and leave it alone. Migrations consume weeks and rarely repay them unless the reason is cost at scale or comprehension.
Related reading
Weighing a migration you are not sure you need?
Free systems teardown: what the current setup costs you per year, which scenarios are worth moving, which should stay and which one is worth owning outright. In writing, within 72 hours.
Get your free systems teardown