Zapier vs Make: Which Automation Platform Fits Your Growth?

• Zapier: brilliant for quick, simple automations. 
• Make: purpose-built for scalable, visual, robust workflows.
• At Flowbird, we'll stabilise what you've got in Zapier (builds only), then migrate you to Make when you're ready to scale. Calmly, cleanly, and with governance. 

Zapier vs Make at a glance

Zapier vs Make: Pricing

Zapier's task-based pricing can feel affordable early on but tends to rise quickly as automations and volume increase. Make's operation-based model is usually more transparent and cost-efficient at scale, especially once workflows branch and grow. 
At Flowbird,we see costs stabilise when teams move more complex automations to make.

Zapier vs Make: Error Handling

Zapier provides basic notifications and can halt flows with limited context. Make offers clear run history, granular logs, and visual debugging, so teams resolve issues faster and avoid silent failures. 
Flowbird migrates fragile chains into Make scenarios so errors are visible and fixable.

Zapier vs Make: Logic & Flexibility 

Zapier is great for straight-line automations. Make excels when you need branching, loops, filters, webhooks, and scheduling in one coherent workflow.
We frequently rebuild multi-zap chains into one readable Make scenario.

Zapier vs Make: Scalability and Governance

A handful of zaps is fine. At scale, documentation, versioning, and visibility matter. Make's visual canvas and scenario-level controls make it easier to review, maintain, and govern over time.
This is where Flowbird's playbooks and standards shine.

Best for CRM & Sales Automation

Zapier can trigger single CRM actions (e.g., create a lead). Make can run the entire motion: enrich, score, route, notify, update reporting... all in one scenario. 
We are CRM specialists; Make lets us design the whole journey, not just the trigger.

Zapier: quick, simple, linear.

This is the classic form to CRM to Slack hand-off. It's perfect for getting started and proving value fast.

What this shows: one straight path that triggers a couple of actions.
Where it tops out: no branches, little context, limited control when something breaks.

Now here's the same workflow in Make. Notice how the single trigger fans into parallel steps. So validation, enrichment, routing, notifications, and reporting all run as one scenario.

What changes in Make: one visual scenario handles validation, enrichment, scoring/routing, CRM updates, Slack with context, and warehouse notifications/reporting.
Why it scales:  clear logic, better error visibility, fewer moving parts.

Already on Zapier? We'll build the zaps you need today - and map the path to Make when you're ready to scale. Talk to Flowbird

When to stay with Zapier (for now)

Choose Zapier if you:

• Have a few simple automations that work.
• Need quick wins without branching logic.
• Don't require deep error tracing or auditability yet.

Flowbird will build zaps for you. Clearly scoped build-only (we don't maintain Zapier error logs).

When to choose Make

Choose Make if you:

• Run multi-step workflows with traditional branching and conditions.
• Need reliable debugging, observability, and governance.
• Care about scale, cost predictability, and speed. 
• Want one visual workflow instead of many fragile zaps.

As an official Make partner, Flowbird designs robust future-proof scenarios that your team can trust.

Migrating from Zapier to Make (Flowbird's calm path)

1.  Map:
     We inventory your zaps, de-duplicate logic, and design a single visual flow per process.
2. Migrate:
    We rebuild in Make (with branching, retries, and error catches), then shadow-run to verify.
3. Scale:
    We add what Zapier struggled with: enrichment, routing, data syncs, and reporting - with playbooks        so you can own it. 

Result: fewer moving parts, fewer surprises, more clarity.

The pain people feel with Zapier (and how Make fixes them)

• Costs rising quietly: Make's usage model scales more gracefully for complex work. 
• Zaps stopping without clarity: Make's run logs show exactly what happened, step by step.
• Chaining zaps to fake branches: True branching and iterators live in one scenario.
• Spaghetti workflows across teams: Centralised, visual designs that are easy to review and govern.

At Flowbird, we see these patterns weekly. The fix is rarely "more zaps". It's better design.

Definitions

• Zap: a linear, trigger-to-action automation in Zapier.
• Scenario: a visual, multi-path workflow in Make with branching, filters, and scheduling.
• Task (Zapier) vs Operation (Make): both represent work the platform executes, but Make's model tends to be more efficient for complex scenarios. 

FAQs

Is Make cheaper than Zapier?
Often at scale, yes. Task-based pricing can spike as usage grows; Make's operation model is typically more efficient for complex workflows.

Can I migrate my zaps to Make?
Yes, Flowbird maps your zaps to Make scenarios, consolidates duplicates, and adds error handling.

Can I keep Zapier for some things and use Make for others?
Absolutely. Many teams keep small zaps and move mission-critical processes to Make.

Which is better for CRM automation?
Make. It handles full journeys (enrich, score, route, notify, and report) within one governed scenario.

Do you support Zapier ongoing?
We'll design and build zaps with clear scope. We don't manage Zapier error logs or maintenance. For ongoing support, we recommend Make. 

Bottom Line

Zapier is a great start. Make is where automation becomes a growth system.
Flowbird meets you where you are - then takes you where you're going. 

Because growth should feel effortless.

Book a calm, 30-minute automation review with Flowbird