Gtm Operator, Lead Generator at 404Minds Technologies
Real User
Top 5
Mar 25, 2026
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. The lagging problem needs to be solved. Sometimes it lags a lot with long workflows, taking too much time or giving errors like not running.
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.
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.
Make is the reason why I feel confident about taking up newer and newer assignments. Make could possibly provide scenarios on their homepage. The moment I log in to my account, Make could ask me what I really want to do in a visual way and not in text form. When I see visuals indicating that I'm going to scrape data, I would click on a thumbnail, or if I'm going to create a workflow, I might look for something like an always-on agentic AI. These can be put onto a thumbnail which can further make my work faster on make.com. There is still a lot of difference when it comes to how the credits come into use and how to monetize what is being offered by Make. For me to be able to monetize what Make offers is equally important as using it. If my clients are going to pay me in a span of 60 to 90 days for a service that is consumed, I need to understand that within that 90-day timeframe, whether using free credits or otherwise, I have to justify the cost. Can I give it more work than the ones I'm currently doing? The ultimate factor is that there are many tasks that an executive does in a recruitment consultancy. Within a recruitment consultancy, being on the agency side of the business where I do business development, prospecting, and lead generation, I document information for each candidate, and then create a business model canvas for each lead I prospect. When presented with 10 different requirements from a Fortune 500 client, I need to quickly close those. Can those free credits be really worthy at that point in time? My commitment needs to be based on the inventory I have.
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.
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.
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.
Make could be improved by having more platforms and connections that we would like to use, as well as more flexibility in paying for operations, with tasks on a sliding scale instead of by tier.Furthermore, providing more thorough support documentation on connecting various platforms and troubleshooting errors would be very beneficial, especially for junior team members.
One thing is that the platform is really slow when loading. It takes about three minutes to get to the page of an automation and start changing things. That is really slow and frustrating. Another improvement would be if Make gave us the ability to use more developer-friendliness features for power users who want that. For example, putting variables inside of expressions would be really awesome. One reason is the slowness I mentioned, and the other thing is that there are platforms such as n8n which provide a better deal because Make is quite expensive. The pricing can be a little more reasonable. Recently they started charging for credits in a way that something will cost more. The pricing structure is transparent, but it is not very good for a growing organization. You should either charge a fixed monthly price or a price for executions, not for each operation. That is not very good to use. One of my main complaints is that they can be more reasonable with their pricing model.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Make is a robust automation platform that streamlines workflows, connecting apps to enhance productivity. Tailored for tech-savvy users, it offers dynamic automation solutions that optimize processes and facilitate seamless integration of disparate systems. At its core, Make empowers businesses to automate tasks through an intuitive builder with drag-and-drop capabilities. Ideal for professionals who need to integrate systems efficiently, it supports a wide range of applications, aiding in...
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. The lagging problem needs to be solved. Sometimes it lags a lot with long workflows, taking too much time or giving errors like not running.
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.
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.
Make is the reason why I feel confident about taking up newer and newer assignments. Make could possibly provide scenarios on their homepage. The moment I log in to my account, Make could ask me what I really want to do in a visual way and not in text form. When I see visuals indicating that I'm going to scrape data, I would click on a thumbnail, or if I'm going to create a workflow, I might look for something like an always-on agentic AI. These can be put onto a thumbnail which can further make my work faster on make.com. There is still a lot of difference when it comes to how the credits come into use and how to monetize what is being offered by Make. For me to be able to monetize what Make offers is equally important as using it. If my clients are going to pay me in a span of 60 to 90 days for a service that is consumed, I need to understand that within that 90-day timeframe, whether using free credits or otherwise, I have to justify the cost. Can I give it more work than the ones I'm currently doing? The ultimate factor is that there are many tasks that an executive does in a recruitment consultancy. Within a recruitment consultancy, being on the agency side of the business where I do business development, prospecting, and lead generation, I document information for each candidate, and then create a business model canvas for each lead I prospect. When presented with 10 different requirements from a Fortune 500 client, I need to quickly close those. Can those free credits be really worthy at that point in time? My commitment needs to be based on the inventory I have.
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.
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.
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.
Make could be improved by having more platforms and connections that we would like to use, as well as more flexibility in paying for operations, with tasks on a sliding scale instead of by tier.Furthermore, providing more thorough support documentation on connecting various platforms and troubleshooting errors would be very beneficial, especially for junior team members.
One thing is that the platform is really slow when loading. It takes about three minutes to get to the page of an automation and start changing things. That is really slow and frustrating. Another improvement would be if Make gave us the ability to use more developer-friendliness features for power users who want that. For example, putting variables inside of expressions would be really awesome. One reason is the slowness I mentioned, and the other thing is that there are platforms such as n8n which provide a better deal because Make is quite expensive. The pricing can be a little more reasonable. Recently they started charging for credits in a way that something will cost more. The pricing structure is transparent, but it is not very good for a growing organization. You should either charge a fixed monthly price or a price for executions, not for each operation. That is not very good to use. One of my main complaints is that they can be more reasonable with their pricing model.
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.
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.
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.
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.