Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Make vs Temporal comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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
31st
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.2
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Temporal
Ranking in Process Automation
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Make is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Temporal is 7.0%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

Yaniv Ivgi - PeerSpot reviewer
An affordable cloud solution for automation and data manipulation
Make has a single IP. We cannot use a single IP because of the security. There are a lot of crashes when you work manually. Also, they need to provide more models. When you have an error, Make should inform them with guidance before you make the mistake. There is a lot of data you can confuse.
AbhishekDash - PeerSpot reviewer
Orchestrates infrastructure tasks like deployment, deletion, and management
Temporal focus on developers rather than business users. In contrast to older workflow orchestration engines like Camunda, which are more business-oriented and strongly emphasize UI and workflow authoring, Temporal is geared toward developers. It provides extensive capabilities for building complex workflows. A standout feature of Temporal is its handling of long-running workflows, a significant advantage over many other solutions. Temporal excels in managing distributed transactions and application state durability, especially in microservice environments where transactions might fail due to network issues. Temporal simplifies these challenges by managing retries, fail-safes, and circuit breakers. As a result, developers don't need to implement these features manually; Temporal handles them implicitly, though it also allows for tuning based on specific needs.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features of Make are the additional options when compared to other similar solutions. For example, with Google my business, you can only do certain things with Zapier, whereas with Make, you can do a little bit more."
"Make's front-end interface, the modular interface that it has, drag-and-drop interface, is very easy to understand, use, and integrate."
"Make saves a lot of time, and I have created really complex scenarios in Make."
"Make's front-end interface, the modular interface that it has, drag-and-drop interface, is very easy to understand, use, and integrate."
"We like the fact that the whole process is durable, which is very useful to us."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its ability to retry from an interrupted state."
"The solution's most valuable features include its ability to simplify the management of complex workflows, improve system resilience and fault tolerance, and reduce the need for extensive boilerplate code."
"Temporal allows retryability for different workflows whenever they fail. It helps ensure idempotence and that things get done."
"What I like best about Temporal is its durable execution, which means you don't need to write many boilerplate code for critical pieces, especially for retries. It also has great observability and a nice dashboard to see issues without digging into logs. The interface for viewing activities is excellent, with good tracing that shows how long activities took and what ran, making it almost perfect for debugging."
"Temporal provides visibility into workflow progress and analytics and supports scheduled tasks with customizable settings, making it very convenient."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to manage and automate workflows without manual intervention efficiently."
 

Cons

"Make could improve the ease of use, it can be more complicated than other solutions. There are a lot of elements that are more technical than in other solutions."
"The pricing of Make at this point is through operations consumption, and it becomes really expensive in certain scenarios when iterations are involved."
"The pricing of Make at this point is through operations consumption, and it becomes really expensive in certain scenarios when iterations are involved."
"Make can be a bit difficult to use for new users, but for someone with technical knowledge and some coding skills, it becomes manageable, especially with Make's great UI features that really help."
"While the tool can be a bit daunting initially, especially if you're not used to async programming models, it's generally a pleasure. There's always room for improvement, though. I've noticed some limitations with the .NET SDK regarding dynamic workflows, but this might have been improved in recent versions. Overall, I think Temporal could be more open about implementing features in a more—.NET-friendly way, especially in how you add workers and clients."
"Temporal images aren’t FIPS compliant, and we have to be FIPS compliant."
"Retro compatibility needs improvement. Sometimes, when we make new changes to a workflow, it fails if it is not configured properly due to compatibility issues."
"One issue is that we don't have enough resources in the community to get answers when we face problems. We once had a cross-cluster persistence issue, which we solved using different keys. I think Temporal is good right now, but I'm part of the community and will let you know if I think of any improvements."
"Temporal doesn't have built-in data storage to store the state of the ongoing execution."
"Configuring workflows can be improved —the solution could offer more options, but it's not a must-have."
"One area where I think Temporal could improve is its dashboard, particularly in event tracking. Currently, the dashboard doesn't show a time-based view of events, meaning it doesn't display when an event started or went through the retry process. If this feature could be added in a future release, it would significantly enhance monitoring capabilities. Other than that, Temporal's overall performance is quite impressive, and we're confident we can migrate to the Temporal workflow."
"I don't like the limitations on data flow, particularly the difficulty of passing large amounts of data between different activities."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Make is approximately $20 per month for the platform."
"Temporal is a free, open-source tool."
"It is worth the price."
"The tool is open source under the MIT license, so there are no hidden fees. You can freely use everything on their GitHub and Docker images."
"Temporal is open-source and free to use, which is great. We didn't have to pay for any premium features."
"The savings weren't as big as we initially expected, but they were pretty great from a developer's perspective."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
16%
Retailer
8%
Manufacturing Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Make?
I find the pricing, setup costs, and licensing costs of Make to be reasonable.
What needs improvement with Make?
I don't think there's anything else Make needs, but one improvement could be the addition of no-code steps that can be used within Make, similar to what Zapier offers with its own actions.
What is your primary use case for Make?
As an entrepreneur and a freelancer who also runs my own agency, I use Make to set up automations for my clients. Recently, the most use cases are of AI agent or AI calling agent, but when I starte...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Temporal?
Temporal OSS is expensive in infrastructure, but it brings back the reliability that companies need.
What needs improvement with Temporal?
The actual user interface is still in its early stages. It’s very basic. Users don’t really have a complex permission model yet. Users don’t really have ways to automate things like, for example, p...
What is your primary use case for Temporal?
We [my company] use it to run a large workload. We have a set of security scans we want to perform, and we distribute them over a full day, that’s over 24 hours. We use it to orchestrate all the st...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Integromat
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Buan Consulting, Armadia
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Make vs. Temporal and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.