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

Make vs WorkflowGen 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
5.4
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
AI Software Development (4th)
WorkflowGen
Ranking in Process Automation
39th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Design (27th), Business Process Management (BPM) (39th), Rapid Application Development Software (31st), Low-Code Development Platforms (34th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Make is 1.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of WorkflowGen is 1.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Make1.5%
WorkflowGen1.3%
Other97.2%
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.
CO
SAP Solution Lead at Johnson & Johnson
Good for automatically triggering workflows, but needs to be more customizable
We use this product for many different reasons related to our business We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do. The most valuable feature is the ability to automatically trigger the workflow. This solution needs to be…

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 has positively impacted my organization by enabling me to generate numerous leads because it is easy to implement, which allowed me to drastically reduce the time needed to create and present a minimum viable product to clients."
"The best features Make offers include its very visual interface, which stands out for me."
"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 has positively impacted my organization by reducing our manual workflow and workload by almost twenty to thirty percent, which I feel is great."
"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's front-end interface, the modular interface that it has, drag-and-drop interface, is very easy to understand, use, and integrate."
"Using Make, they have saved about 50% of their time, which equals one labor resource, translating to a significant amount of money saved."
"Took few hours to build workflows with ready-to-use templates, so we had improved productivity."
"It’s easier, more controlled and automatized checks of the budget through this system."
"We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do."
"We use it a lot for creating workflows to transfer materials between plants, which is a signature part of what we do."
 

Cons

"One area for improvement is an auto-building feature."
"There is a file size constraint, as when I try to upload a PDF question bank of 200 pages, it shows an error and the file cannot process the data."
"I chose a nine out of ten because sometimes my browser gets crashed while working on Make, and I do not know why."
"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."
"The pricing of Make at this point is through operations consumption, and it becomes really expensive in certain scenarios when iterations are involved."
"Make has helped me save time positively, but I think there is room for improvement in Make as well."
"Make could improve the ease of use, it can be more complicated than other solutions."
"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."
"The reports for users. The reports with more details; we have to generate them by the database."
"This solution needs to be more customizable."
"This solution needs to be more customizable."
"Yes, for email notification but it could also be with company network."
 

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.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
15%
Educational Organization
10%
Non Tech Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
17%
Construction Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
 

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?
Earlier I used to spend too much time understanding the insights from my projects. Now I only spend four to five hours, but I can get everything in one hour or even 30 seconds. It's easy. After one...
What needs improvement with Make?
Sometimes the platform is too laggy and loads slowly. The credits are also getting used up too quickly, which takes too much credit. If the credits could be reduced, that would be more efficient. T...
What is your primary use case for Make?
I'm using Make for integration with GoHighLevel, which is a CRM tool. I integrate data from Google Sheets or the GHL CRM to automate repetitive tasks. I use Make nearly every day for whatever task ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Integromat
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Buan Consulting, Armadia
Comcast, Deloitte, Mitsui & Co Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur, Textron, XL Group. WorkflowGen accelerates business process adaptability in 70 countries for 500+ organizations and 1,000,000 users.
Find out what your peers are saying about Make vs. WorkflowGen and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
894,738 professionals have used our research since 2012.