My main use case for Make is that it serves as a perfect tool to interlace most of our API connections, syncing different environments together. Make enables us to connect apps that lack native integration, have limited API solutions of their own, or which do not meet our business needs. Whatever we needed, we could create in Make and remain satisfied about the performance.

A specific example of how I use Make for API connections in my environment is integrating our CRM with a marketing application for data transmission and unity, GDPR compliance, and synchronization has been excellent through Make. Building scenarios for each specific language or location action has been beneficial. Managing certain actions and triggers based on links, some of the workflow solutions were not present in marketing tools, and we needed to create more complex processing in Make to meet our needs. Make is also a great tool that we use to build various automations, and it is excellent for connecting multiple tools together to send data. For example, at our company, we use Make to send new orders notifications from Shopify to Slack and also add the customer's shipping information to a Google Sheet for the fulfillment team. The best feature about Make that competitors lack is the option to connect rare and available apps via their API. It also allows us to get data from anywhere on the internet via GET requests.

I have additional use cases for Make, as we use it to support a variety of internal and client integration projects. Everything from automating invoices from CRM orders to running recurring data pools from our database to client platform API connections for reporting has been excellent. It also helped us to connect platforms that otherwise would not connect while giving us the opportunity to code and customize these integrations for our specific use cases.

Make has been used in my organization to start an automation process in the sales and marketing departments, closely followed by operations and human resources departments. Sales and marketing are automating all their initial contacts with clients from the first contact until the client is up and running independently. Operations are automating the tickets and follow-up to pending reports that clients submit. Human resources benefit from Make because they are integrating information streams from some of their departments using Make.

The best features Make offers include integration to a multitude of platforms that many other tools do not offer and the reliability of scenarios running as planned without consistent errors or failures. Scheduling capabilities to prevent exceeding API limits and customization opportunities to align fields and data exactly how they are needed for use cases are also noteworthy.

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 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.

I have been using Make for the past four years and six months.

Based on my experience, I have not experienced any downtime, so Make is very stable.

Make is a very scalable tool that can handle my organization's growth.

The customer support for Make has been very great and responsive.

I previously used Zapier.

I switched from Zapier to Make because Make has a different pricing schema than Zapier. Almost all the apps that I create on Make can be done in Zapier. The only difference is that Make is more accessible in terms of cost. In my opinion, Make is bigger than Zapier and has more robust features, and it is very cost-effective and easy to use for anyone.

I have indeed seen a return on investment as it has saved us hundreds of hours in repetitive tasks, streamlining our follow-up to the leads that we are generating.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that the cost is effective and licensing was affordable.

Before choosing Make, I evaluated other options including Microsoft Dynamics 365, Zoom CRM, and Zoho CRM.

Make is an interesting service that has helped to automate boring tasks such as sending welcome messages to people and automating repetitive tasks that do not generate value for the person doing them, thus saving their time. It has also been great for creating complex interactions between applications in order to automate completely internal processes from the company.

My advice for others looking into using Make is that it is a great tool if you want to automate boring tasks such as sending welcome messages to people and automating repetitive tasks that do not generate value for the person doing them, thus saving their time and allowing them to focus on more strategic tasks. Additionally, it effectively automates the creation of complex interactions between applications in order to streamline completely internal processes, thus saving a lot of cost and time. I would rate my overall experience with Make an 8 out of 10, as it is a very recommendable tool.

In our current company, we have a funnel workflow for the people who sign up. We do certain things such as creating database entries, creating our CRM entries, and then updating the information. If they book a meeting, we update those meeting booking details in the CRM as well. All of these parts are connected through Make. Make is working as the integration partner between the steps of our user workflows.

We have been using a lot of interconnected integrations in Make. I see that as a very good use case for Make because it has thousands of interconnected integrations. We can basically make anything between all of those interconnected integrations. That is a very big use case for us.

My main use case for Make is building automations.

The best features Make offers are mainly the simple UI and having a lot of integrations. I use some other partners as well, such as n8n. n8n is good in a lot of ways, but Make does have a much larger integrations library, so that is a very good thing about Make.

The simple UI helps me in my day-to-day work because you can build an automation really easily by just connecting nodes and putting wires. When you need to check something or verify failed execution, the simple UI helps a lot.

Make has positively impacted our organization as it has saved us a lot of time rather than doing these automations manually or writing code to do the automation. It has saved countless hours of worrying about finding where the issue is by giving us a really easy way to track executions and see what went wrong. Make saves hundreds of hours by doing the automations rather than having people do it manually. Rather than having people write code to do this, Make has saved us approximately 20 hours.

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.

I have been using Make for almost two years now.

Make is stable in the sense that when it is working, it is stable. However, I have faced some bugs here and there. The main thing is the page load time. There are sometimes moments when you click something that does not work. Those kinds of bugs are present. I would say it is about 90% stable.

Scalability is an issue when you have a lot of workflows and a lot of executions. You have to go with bigger plans. I think it is pretty scalable, but then going for scale will make you pay a lot more. Because of that, we do not have any practical experience on scalability. However, I would say it is scalable because I have seen people with very large organizations use Make.

Customer service is okay. When you have a question, they support you. They have a good chatbot as well and it can answer your questions within seconds.

We did use Zapier before, and then Make came. I think the pricing was okay at that time. However, we have also switched back from Make to n8n and we are more focusing on n8n right now rather than Make.

Before using Make, we evaluated n8n. At that time, n8n was not very good and was in its blooming days, but now n8n is very good and that is why we are more sticking with it.

Make has a very good return on investment because although we pay that amount, we secure clients and the client life cycle is kept intact. It allows our sales representatives to focus more on their work rather than updating the CRM every time. It has saved a lot of time. For the sales team, I would say it is saving at least two hours per day. For a week, that is saving around 10 to 20 hours.

I did not get included in the setup, but regarding the pricing, we use the 40 Euro package. I think it gives us 40,000 credits. I am not sure about the exact amount, but I know we get around 40,000 credits. As I said, that is not on the reasonable side of the spectrum.

I would say first make sure Make supports your use case. Come up with your use case and use a free Make account to draft your workflow. If everything works properly, then proceed with buying it. Also be sure about the number of nodes that you use. Try to minimize the number of nodes because Make is charging per node, per action. If you feel that there is a more convenient option out there, such as n8n or Zapier, go with it. Make is very good and has a lot of integrations, but first make sure that is what you want.

I would rate this product a 7 out of 10.

Some of the very simple use cases that people use Make for is AI-powered content creation. That is where we help them out with different kinds of content creation and social media posting, different business process automations such as HR recruitment processes. Several of these cases have been implemented using Make.

Make's front-end interface, the modular interface that it has, drag-and-drop interface, is very easy to understand, use, and integrate. It has definitely helped us and in terms of efficiency, it reduces the time that is required to complete any sort of automations.

Make's key features are very flexible when compared to Zapier. Because of that flexibility and the features it provides when using a particular module within Make, as well as using an HTTP module directly accessing any API, it is very flexible compared to Zapier.

Make's front-end or the low-code interface provides you with a very efficient way of creating these integrations and automations, which saves your time to market or creation time of these automations.

We utilize Make's drag-and-drop interface all the time. We use that low-code interface for creating automations.

We have utilized them and used them with different sorts of AI decision making. As advanced users of Make, we have handled many complex scenarios within Make.

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.

We have been working on Make for the last two to two and a half years. Before Make, it was called Integromat. We have been working with it since before it was acquired and rebranded.

In terms of scalability, Make has no limitation or issues.

We have escalated a few issues that we faced during some integrations, and we received reasonable responses from Make support.

The initial setup for Make and getting a project ready and starting off with the project is very easy. Usability is not an issue.

n8n provides the same kind of flexibility and is much cheaper than Make. Once we install and get the local implementation ready for n8n, it becomes free for users.

Zapier is less flexible, and with the evolution coming through n8n and Make's new features, it is becoming a primitive tool. The main comparison in terms of features between Make and n8n shows that n8n, apart from pricing, is evolving into user interface based automations as other tools UIPath or Automation Anywhere.

In the last three months, many new customers are requesting n8n because of this pricing strategy.

Make is very flexible, easy to use, and has a whole universe of modules readily available within its offering and portfolio. People should feel comfortable using it even if they are citizen developers or not hardcore developers. They should be able to use Make by watching one or two tutorials and by dragging and dropping things and connecting the different modules and adding conditions. I highly recommend Make with a rating of 8 out of 10.

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.