No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Make vs Pipefy comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 15, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Make
Ranking in Process Automation
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
AI Software Development (5th)
Pipefy
Ranking in Process Automation
28th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
4.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Agentic Automation (11th), AI Agent Builders (13th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Make is 1.6%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pipefy is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Make1.6%
Pipefy0.4%
Other98.0%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

FA
Chief Executive Officer at Ashtex Solutions
Flexibility and efficiency accelerate business processes
Make needs to put some focus on or clarify the security aspect in its documentation or website. When creating automation through these modules between two different applications, there should be clarity about whether the data is secure while passing through these automations or integrations created within Make. The pricing of Make at this point is through operations consumption, and it becomes really expensive in certain scenarios when iterations are involved. The operation consumption is too high and sometimes becomes a burden on the client. Make needs to review its pricing strategy since they have tough competition from n8n. Make sometimes has issues with user logins and data saving when simultaneously working on two different PCs or when two developers are working on something or some blueprint. It can lose saved data from one interface to the other, and when logging on with the same user on another workstation, it occasionally misbehaves. We were unaware that Make had its own local implementation module. They need to advertise this feature more effectively as we are developing many projects in Make and working with various clients.
Andre Soares - PeerSpot reviewer
Sre at Atlas Technologies
Workflow automation has improved cross‑team collaboration and centralizes operational requests
Overall, I had a positive experience with Pipefy, but I think there are still some areas that could be improved. One area would be advanced workflow management and scalability for more complex enterprise environments. As workflows grow larger and involve many teams, pipelines and automations can become difficult to maintain and organize over time. I also think reports and analytics could be more flexible and customizable for operational and management level insights. More advanced dashboard capabilities would be helpful for larger organizations. Another improvement could be deeper native integrations with technical and DevOps-oriented tools, especially for infrastructure and engineering workflows. In some cases, more advanced automation logic or conditional workflows require additional configurations or effort. Simplifying this experience could improve usability. Finally, while the platform is very useful and user-friendly for non-technical users, governance and permission management in larger environments could become easier to structure and manage at scale.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Make has positively impacted my organization by enabling us to solve use cases for hundreds of clients across hundreds of different platforms, providing the customization capabilities to automate accounting and invoicing processes that save dozens of man-hours a month, and allowing us to build custom churn, retention, and engagement costs that have driven a 30% reduction in churn."
"Make has positively impacted my organization by reducing the number of hours that go into validating and verifying the flow of a particular repetitive process, which would otherwise take multiple hours, to just a few minutes to review for more than 1,000 or 2,000 case scenarios."
"Make has positively impacted my organization by helping me save around 10 plus hours per month to automate reporting and social media posting."
"This means the task that I would complete in a span of one day is completed in a matter of minutes by using Make."
"Make saves me roughly forty-five percent to sixty percent of time since the analysis part and solution are provided below the question."
"The new AI feature that Make has launched is really amazing."
"I am using Make for content creation, and it saves time in content creation for me and helps with tasks by creating content for me even without writing a single word."
"Instead of spending several days implementing and testing API integrations inside our FastAPI back end, I was able to build the workflows in a few hours using Make."
"In terms of money and time saved, Pipefy is a great time saver overall, reflecting in analysts handling additional projects beyond ticket management."
"Pipefy has impacted my organization positively as we have not reduced our headcount, but we could if we wanted to because the number of people managing those processes before Pipefy was a lot."
"Overall, Pipefy helped create more predictable, organized, and scalable operational processes."
"Pipefy has had a positive impact on my organization by helping the collections team convert invoices that were overdue into paid invoices and, consequently, cash for the company."
 

Cons

"One area that needs improvement is the debugging and monitoring."
"I give Make a rating of seven because it is not open-sourced and there are many hidden charges, which can affect a beginner's workflow when trying it out."
"Actually, I did not finish this project with Make; I could not manage to finish the full workflow, and I decided to leave it as it is, implementing it a different way because it is very tricky."
"Make has helped me save time positively, but I think there is room for improvement in Make as well."
"The pricing of Make at this point is through operations consumption, and it becomes really expensive in certain scenarios when iterations are involved."
"I feel that Make can be improved in terms of API handling and integrations."
"Pricing is definitely something that is on a higher tier where we are consuming around 1.5 to 2 million operations per month, which makes the bill quite substantial."
"One area for improvement is an auto-building feature."
"I believe Pipefy can be improved by clarifying the API calls and making packages for API calls more accessible, because in my organization we have a lot of automation, but we have few API calls, precisely because we have a fixed plan and the organization, in fact, does not need that."
"Overall, I had a positive experience with Pipefy, but I think there are still some areas that could be improved."
"Pipefy can be improved with processes not only following Kanban styles but other kinds of processes that have more paths, not just a single, direct path, but they have bifurcations."
"What is lacking is direct support, since I am required to go through a third-party outsourcing company to connect with Pipefy."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Make is approximately $20 per month for the platform."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
899,324 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
15%
Educational Organization
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Make?
Regarding my experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing for Make, I would add that they need to provide a dark mode because the UI is in light mode. I remember that when I was working late...
What needs improvement with Make?
I think there are improvements needed for Make. They could add a guide roadmap for beginners to make it more accessible. While Make is easy to use, there is always room for improvement. There are m...
What is your primary use case for Make?
My main use case for Make involves automating social media content creation and personalized content creation for my social profile like Instagram.
What needs improvement with Pipefy?
Pipefy can be improved with processes not only following Kanban styles but other kinds of processes that have more paths, not just a single, direct path, but they have bifurcations. Pipefy can also...
What is your primary use case for Pipefy?
My main use case for Pipefy is to manage processes and to follow processes with Kanban style management and for some automations such as when an activity is completed then someone gets an email ask...
What advice do you have for others considering Pipefy?
My advice for others looking into using Pipefy is to first describe the process and the improvements in the process before developing the system and the Kanban style. Before you develop Pipefy, I s...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

Integromat
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Buan Consulting, Armadia
1. Accenture 2. Coca-Cola 3. Santander 4. IBM 5. Unilever 6. Siemens 7. Johnson & Johnson 8. Deloitte 9. PwC 10. Nestle 11. General Electric 12. Microsoft 13. Oracle 14. Amazon 15. Facebook 16. Google 17. Apple 18. Uber 19. Airbnb 20. Netflix 21. Adobe 22. Salesforce 23. Cisco 24. Intel 25. HP 26. Samsung 27. Sony 28. Toyota 29. Volkswagen 30. BMW 31. Mercedes-Benz 32. Audi
Find out what your peers are saying about Make vs. Pipefy and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
899,324 professionals have used our research since 2012.