Make Reviews

In that project, I used Make to build a real-time monitoring dashboard for internet of things devices using React for the front end and a FastAPI for the back end and MQTT for handling data streams. I used Make to automate workflows between the back end and external services, such as email notification systems and data storage endpoints. When specific events occurred, such as device data updates or threshold alerts, Make triggered actions such as sending notifications, forwarding processed data to other APIs, and synchronizing data for further analysis.

Regarding the use case, Make helped us avoid writing custom integration logic in the back end and kept our system more modular.

The best features Make offers are that it helps automate repetitive back end tasks, which is very helpful. You save a lot of time and money. It also helps connect multiple services quickly so you do not spend time writing integration code or reviewing back end documentation. Thus, it saves a significant amount of development time.

Make positively impacts our organization by helping us save a significant amount of time, especially for the back end where we needed many integrations to our API. We had third-party storages where we saved our data and needed notifications sent. When we had threshold data and emergencies when we hit limitations, we did not want to spend time on integration, which is a very repetitive task that requires learning specific documentation details. For that part, I think Make saved money and time, which is very important in the initial phase of development.

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. I saved multiple development days and it also reduced the engineering effort, lowering maintenance costs since changes to integrations could be handled directly in Make without modifying back end code. As a result, I could focus more on core features such as real-time data processing and the React dashboard, rather than managing integrations. Overall, I saved around a week, which translates to approximately a thousand euros, so it was a very significant amount.

One area that needs improvement is the debugging and monitoring. When a workflow fails and you have different places where the problem might be, it can be very difficult to identify which step caused the issue, especially in multi-step scenarios. When handling event-driven workflows from a FastAPI back end triggered by MQTT data, it is sometimes not clear whether the issue is in the API response, in the transformation step, or in the final action. I would love to have more detailed logs, step-by-step error tracing, and better visualization of failed executions, as I think it would improve the user experience significantly.

My advice for others looking into using Make is that it is a great tool for quickly automating workflows and integrating APIs. However, it is important to keep workflows organized as complexity grows.

The most valuable feature is the time saving, especially in startups when you want to release the first version of your product quickly and want other parts to be smooth. Sometimes back end tasks take more time, sometimes front end, but if you have services such as Make, it can make the development time faster. You develop faster, check your features faster, and make integrations faster, so overall it helps to go to market quicker. I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.

I is primarily use Make for automations in companies and businesses, specifically for report generation and similar tasks.

I recently built a workflow for a recruiting company called NSL that needed to conduct a test for candidates and generate a report. The entire process, including test preparation, result generation, and sending the 40-page report to the candidates, was fully automated.

Automating this process with Make saved considerable time for NSL and my team because generating one report manually could take nearly one day for each candidate. Automation reduced that time to approximately 14 minutes per candidate, allowing the entire process to be completed within 15 minutes from start to finish.

My main use case for Make currently involves small automations, although I believe Make has introduced new features such as agent mode, which I haven't tested extensively but seem promising.

Make offers great features, including extensive tool connectivities and a simple user interface, which makes it excellent for beginners and enhances ease of use.

Regarding tool connectivities, I find the RSS feed straightforward and user-friendly, and the Airtable node is similarly easy to use. Make has asset-type reactor nodes that automatically begin actions when data is entered, which is something that other apps typically require webhook integrations to achieve.

The user interface is straightforward and always presents data in schema format, enabling an easy drag-and-drop experience.

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.

To improve Make, I would suggest increasing the token limit, possibly allowing each run to cost only one token, which would be beneficial as no-code tools require significant testing. Additionally, implementing a pin feature for each result would facilitate reusing outputs easily.

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. I recommend making testing free initially, then requiring a premium subscription for publishing. Additionally, there are not enough nodes for internal tasks such as adding Python code, which requires third-party tools.

I have been using Make for the past two years.

My advice for others looking into using Make is to start as a beginner, understand the concepts, explore relevant artificial intelligence for automations, and begin with templates, as there are many resources available within the community and on YouTube. I also believe the flow in Make could improve by allowing multiple nodes to be executed synchronously.

I believe Make can still improve to compete better with the open-source automation platform n8n. I rate Make a seven overall.

My main use case for Make is mostly for marketing automation, including lead generation, lead integration, routing to sales agents, and for personal uses.

I had a client who wanted me to retrieve every post being posted on a specific subreddit so that he could use that conversation or specific post and comment on it organically. This gives him a chance to warm up the client and sell his CRM product. I set up the automation by using the Reddit API to connect to Make and used the Google Gemini flash AI agent to summarize the post and the replies.

One of our clients uses HubSpot as a CRM, so I connected WhatsApp automation and everything on Make. Whenever the lead status is changed on HubSpot, the automation triggers on Make, and a certain type of template that I have created on WhatsApp is automatically sent to the lead. An internal notification is also sent to the sales team.

The best features Make offers are unlimited workflows that can be created, and the pricing is quite affordable.

The unlimited workflows have helped me and my clients get more done because sometimes I need to create a temporary workflow for my personal use cases. With another version like Zapier, I would not be able to quickly add multiple workflows with complex routing. With Make, I could pause the active scenarios and resume my temporary one, which is beneficial.

I really appreciate the drag and drop interface. I am not good at coding, so if I had to create automation for my marketing purposes and CRM integration, I would have to code it manually using Python or JavaScript and rely on another developer or someone who knows code. With Make, it is much easier for me.

Make has positively impacted my organization by helping me save around 10 plus hours per month to automate reporting and social media posting.

Since I am not using Make extensively for other purposes, my use is fulfilled enough, and I do not see anything that needs improvement.

I have not faced any needed improvements or challenges while using Make. I chose a nine out of ten because sometimes my browser gets crashed while working on Make, and I do not know why. For this reason, I have to save every couple of minutes so I do not lose any progress.

I have been using Make for around seven to eight months.

Make is stable in my experience.

In terms of scalability, I think Make is capable of handling complex workflows. The workflows that I have created are pretty simple and not too difficult.

I have not contacted customer support yet for any issues because I am not a regular user.

I previously used N8n, which had a self-hosted version, so I could create as many workflows as I wanted. N8n is much better than Make, and I used N8n much more than Make, so I do not know all the features Make has.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is quite affordable for my use case. I could get the return on investment from the work that I have done using Make, so the setup is not difficult and is pretty simple for me.

I have seen a return on investment because I could avoid hiring a new team to do reporting and social media posting. Everything is done through Make.

With that extra time each month, I could focus more on sales and upscaling my business, so it is really worth it.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is that it is quite affordable for my use case. I could get the return on investment from the work that I have done using Make, so the setup is not difficult and is pretty simple for me.

Before choosing Make, I evaluated other options including N8n due to the self-hosted version.

I would advise others looking into using Make to consider it if they want to get a starting point of automation for something pretty simple. I would rate Make a nine out of ten.

I started using Make for a specific use case because I needed to create a workflow to upload videos using the API from YouTube. I decided to create an automation workflow to upload a new video every day without manual intervention.

My main use case for Make is to create a workflow where I connect to Gemini to generate ideas, then trigger a video API to create a video from this prompt, and afterwards, use the Gemini API to create a title for the video.

Basically, I have a scheduler that starts every evening to facilitate how this automation works.

My main goal was to create an automation workflow without manual intervention, and this workflow creates and uploads a video to YouTube. From the same idea, there are different videos and different titles, and I do not write them down in Excel; everything is inside Make within this workflow. I was trying to reduce my manual effort.

The best features Make offers include its very visual interface, which stands out for me.

The visual interface provided by Make is valuable because it gives a global view and a global understanding of what comes after what.

My experience with Make has been a sour point because I thought it would be much easier to create, but I found it really tricky.

What made it challenging for me was dealing with the API keys and navigating between different locations; it should be from one platform, and for example, creating an API key should be one action instead of having to investigate where it is located.

I wish the connection to the API was much easier and smoother for how Make can be improved.

I chose a rating of seven out of ten because when you are trying to handle a complex workflow, the visual builder is great but very hard to manage. When I was trying to build a complex automation, I needed error handling, and it is really difficult to handle, which made it messy.

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 not been stable for me, and I did not appreciate it as much, mostly because of the problems I mentioned.

As CTO at MyDubai.io, I have been working for about a year, but with application development, I have worked for over a decade.

Make has not been stable for me, and I did not appreciate it as much, mostly because of the problems I mentioned.

When it comes to Make's scalability, I find that when you create a huge workflow, it is very difficult because it is very complex to create a complex workflow, and when you have an error, it is very hard to do error handling and debugging.

I did not reach out to any customer support team regarding Make.

I used a traditional solution like Python before using Make, which essentially created the same ideas that I wanted, just using traditional programming.

The idea to use Make came to me when I met it the first time, and after not finishing it successfully, the idea remained, but I ended up implementing it using traditional programs.

I downloaded the Docker and installed Make on-premises in my organization.

I think the price is fair, but I found myself paying too much for every subscription; that is a different story. I found a solution that allows me to use Make almost for free, just using the Docker on-premises, making pricing a consideration since it was free for me.

My advice to others looking into using Make is to start with a very simple workflow and not try to overcomplicate it; when you finish the simple workflow, you can add more to it, otherwise it will become messy very quickly, making it very difficult to handle errors.

I think overall Make is a really powerful tool, but there are definitely a few areas it could be improved based on my experience. My overall rating for Make is seven out of ten.

The main use case is to provide automation, such as Google Sheet automation or anything that requires API calling to get data from external tools and send it to Google Sheets or a database.

One specific example of an automation I have set up using Make is for a cab booking system, where I take data from WhatsApp, collect all the details, and call that using the Make webhook to send the WhatsApp data to Make, which then sends the data to Google Sheets.

After gathering the data, I can trigger new API calls based on sheet conditions, such as whenever a row updates or changes, ensuring the automation works according to my requirements.

Make has positively impacted my organization because I noticed that Make offers an export option available that helps me replicate the same project for different clients with their Make accounts, and it was a one-time effort that is replicable to most clients based on their needs.

One of the best features Make offers is the webhook, which provides and accepts all incoming data.

Regarding the webhook feature in Make, I appreciate that it is always up with no downtime, and it has no restrictions for sending data, whether I want to add an API key or not; both front-end to back-end calling options are available.

I would also mention the filter feature in Make, which I use mostly.

Make can be improved in terms of the code module, as sometimes I use it at a developer level, and I want it to be more specific; when using the webhook, some data structures may require a lot of time to organize, so if a code node is available, it would help me structure data effectively.

For my benefit, I think the pricing could be adjusted according to workflow execution.

I have been using Make for around one year.

Make is stable.

Make's scalability is very good, and if the pricing were lower, I could scale a lot more.

I do not currently require any customer support because most of the resources are available on YouTube or in the documentation.

I was using Zapier earlier, and I switched due to the flexibility and features that Make offers, particularly the webhook and better uptime.

Currently, I am saving around 40% of my time through Make.

I use Make only for my organization.

I implemented a booking system for my client that previously required data to be entered directly into Google Sheets and reminders to be sent manually; using Make, they have saved about 50% of their time, which equals one labor resource, translating to a significant amount of money saved.

My advice for others looking into using Make is to first go through the documentation and learn, then define a use case in Google Sheets or Google Docs before using Make, as it might be difficult to change the data structure later.

Before choosing Make, I evaluated other options that included Zapier.

The reason I rate Make a seven is primarily due to the high pricing and some issues with the code node.

I use Make for my personal use only as of now, and I am learning Make and automating things with it.

Recently, I have created a scenario wherein I can automate the process to find me a topic, and based on that topic, it makes me a LinkedIn post and shares it with me on my email.

That was a scenario I had created, but the only challenge is that this scenario is not yet perfect, so I am not yet posting those posts.

I already shared one example of Make, where I have prepared a scenario wherein I spoke about the LinkedIn post. That is the only task I have prepared, and I think if I could give the perfect prompt, if I can enhance the prompt, it can give me a better output. Once that is successful, I will not have to search or hunt down for a topic every day to post on LinkedIn; Make will automatically help me research the topic and get me a scenario to post on LinkedIn.

I use Make for my private use only; I have not used it for my organization.

The process that Make offers is very easy and easily understandable.

Everything about Make, including the interface, is easy to understand, eye-pleasing, and there are enough tutorials on Make that help me learn new scenarios.

Initially, I was not aware of automation, but now I can do plenty of automations. I can try out various things and can make it interact with one application to another, which is very helpful. This has made a very positive impact on my life because initially I was not able to do things quickly and efficiently, but now with the help of Make, I can plan many things that help my work become efficient.

I think I have a Teams plan, which is helpful for me, but once that plan is over, as a learner, I will not be able to afford this Teams plan further. Make can enhance the credit limit for free use because what is happening now is that most of the credits have been used during testing only.

The thing I missed, which kept it from being a perfect ten, was the free usage limit because whenever a free user runs out of their credit, they have to wait for a long time, and most of the credits have been used during testing only.

I have been using Make for around six to seven months.

As of now, I have not experienced any downtime or issues with Make; it is quite a stable application for me.

Previously, I have used n8n, but the only thing that I found was that n8n's plans are costlier than Make, which is why I switched to Make, and even the Make interface is easy.

I have already used n8n before choosing Make.

I have definitely seen a return on investment, but I cannot share an example because I have not made many scenarios with Make.

I will definitely ask others to use Make more often because it helps a lot; it improves efficiency, and that is the biggest thing I found about Make.

My main use case for Make involves automating WhatsApp messages, website visits, and how to reply to them. I'm not using it very frequently, but it is a helpful tool.

I once automated a few things with Make. If a client is onboarding and that person has some questions, I had submitted a few things, and accordingly, it was giving them a reply, and it was finally redirecting them towards my website.

I chose to automate that particular process ideally just to save my time because I was getting so many leads and needed to filter them out, determining which lead is a warm lead, which lead is a hot lead, or something similar.

I don't have anything else to add about my main use case or how it's helped me manage my leads. I think I have covered most of it. I will be using Make in the future, but as of now, I am using a lot of other tools as well.

The templates available on Make are really interesting, and they can really help a person who is starting a new company. But I think for my current situation, I can only leave this kind of review for now.

Make has helped me save time positively. The templates available on Make are really interesting and can genuinely help people who are starting new companies.

I cannot give you any particular metric, but overall, Make has helped me save my time.

Make has helped me save my time, and time is money, so obviously, eventually it has helped me save my money as well.

Make has helped me save time positively, but I think there is room for improvement in Make as well. I believe there were a lot of features related to Make that I was not able to use because of a lack of knowledge. If you could add some kind of tool or something which could help people who are laymen in terms of tech, that would be helpful.

As of now, I don't think I have a lot of things in my mind about how Make can be improved.

I have been using the solution since September 2025.

I did not previously use a different solution for automation. Make was my first automation tool, so this was my very first experience with any kind of automation.

I don't have any connections with this vendor other than being a customer. I just completed my course from Make, received my certifications, and used a few tools and templates.

Make has helped me save my time, and time is money, so obviously, eventually it has helped me save my money as well.

I don't think I paid anything for Make. I just completed the course and got my certifications after I had passed the test.

My advice to others looking into using Make is to use it and explore a few things. You will be able to learn a few things which you will be needing in the future. Make is a helpful tool. But I think you should do a bit of marketing because I don't know many people who know about Make in person.

I have not explored Make a lot, but it's decent.

I chose eight out of ten because I haven't used any tool which is related to automation. This was my first experience with an automation tool, and it was helpful for me. Obviously, I don't have any other tool in my mind which can help me automate a few things. There is always room for improvement for things, so that's why I'm giving an eight, not a perfect ten.

I'm not using Make very frequently as of now, but there was a time in the past few months when I was actually using it on a daily basis to automate some things.

When I was using Make regularly, it was deployed just through the make.com website.

We use Make to manipulate data, cut the numbers, take this line of code, and translate it to another line of code. SaaS products use XML, and other products use JSON. You need to translate to communicate between them. You have to make a transit code between them to communicate and take the backup between them.

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.

I have been using Make for four years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution's scalability is great.

The solution is for enterprises but is more suitable for medium- and small-size businesses.

There is no issue with the technical support. I did use the support and community for help.

Zapier is the only competition. Zapier is easy, but it becomes a more robust product when you understand Make. It becomes easier to use with visual and lightness in the building. This helps a lot to know where you are and where you will build inside instead of Zapier.

The initial setup is simple and better than Zapier.

Make is cheaper than Zapier.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.