In automating any kind of user workflow or business process workflow, everything leads back to how data is being transferred, modified, or saved across systems while using Make automations. For example, if we have our CRM systems on monday.com and we are using a Google Form to collect responses for a particular item, we use Make to understand the responses and pass it properly into the monday CRM and send relevant communications using email or text.

In our current organization, we have automated well over 600 processes including all the major workflows of student onboarding, student discontinuation, team member handling, tickets, and CRM manipulation. We have across 2,000 to 3,000 scenarios in the system, with over 500 to 600 workflows automated.

In terms of communicating between systems and between platforms, Make would be the primary tool of choice because instead of going about creating or writing API codes for multiple platforms, Make creates a seamless connection where modules come in and take care of most of the heavy lifting of code.

The visual workflow builder is something that stands out prominently, providing a no-code platform which connects across multiple different integrations and platforms. This means that even making changes to a particular platform can trigger a different functionality on a separate platform, so integrations definitely come into the picture. Additionally, the ability to create webhooks on the go is another particular feature that stands out.

Having an in-built or in-house data store to manipulate data and store it across multiple different scenarios is one more feature which particularly makes it stand out. The new work grid feature makes it visually very appealing to see how the automation workflow works.

Make has positively impacted my organization by reducing the number of hours that go into validating and verifying the flow of a particular repetitive process, which would otherwise take multiple hours, to just a few minutes to review for more than 1,000 or 2,000 case scenarios. Any fallback cases also go seamlessly into the incomplete executions DLQ for me to analyze and resolve.

The ability to have further customizations to certain functions and modules that are pre-existing may be something that could be improved. Regular updates to cover up any bugs or issues or proper repeated community asks is also essential.

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. Keeping that in mind, there can be instances where the scenarios can be optimized properly to reduce operation count. One other thing that probably needs improvement is proper documentation of internal automations, which could be a tool that queries all the current scenarios and acts as a chatbot or helper to find certain values or parameters used across scenarios.

I have been using Make for about three to four years.

My advice to others looking into using Make is to go through the documentation first and go through the training and certification courses. Those are pretty detailed and almost cover all aspects that you would need to implement in an automation scenario. I would rate this product an 8 out of 10.

I have been working in my current field for the last three years and have been using Make for two months.

I have used Make for two projects. The first project is medical case analysis, where if a patient uploads any case details, we handle that and provide solutions in three fields of a hospital: allopathy, homeopathy, and Ayurveda. Ayurveda is in Indian medical sciences, and from these three options, the patient can decide which one to choose and what tests are included.

In this medical case analysis project, I took five case studies of five different patients and translated the manual data using API to shift it to Google AI Studio. I made it there and used Make's JSON response from the output.

In my second project, which is about the UPSC exam, I converted PDFs given in manual format into HTML. I used data manipulations along with Make's built-in data parsers and regular expressions modules to analyze each question and integrate the options by iterators, making the process sequential.

The best features Make offers, in my experience, include the infrastructure of hosting and error handling, which I have found reduces many errors during projects. Additionally, it allows for secure and reliable API integration with Google AI Studio and provides visual debugging for the mock test data.

During my projects, the visual debugging helped me connect to AI Studio. JSON represents large data, which is converted into a shorter image that I can explain easily to patients.

I have two to three drawbacks I would like to add.

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. The second drawback is the complex native app modules, as every single API does not integrate properly. I have tested some other API integrations, and they have not worked as expected. The third issue is that if I encounter one error, it halts the execution, which causes a delay.

These drawbacks impact my workflow as I have to separate the PDF into two or three parts due to the file constraints. For native app API integration, I use standard APIs like Google AI Studio, and for error handling, checking manually works better if just one error occurs. Additionally, I notice Make is heavily dependent on regular expressions. For example, if a question is written as 1Q, it sees it as one question.

I feel I have covered most of the points regarding improvements needed. I choose a rating of eight out of ten because I feel the file constraint part and native modules for API integration should be improved while making the workflow process. I do not have any other improvements needed for Make apart from the file constraint issue, which must be looked into, and the visual clutter issues when uploading more than three to five patients at once.

Make is stable in my experience.

Make's scalability is good.

When I had a problem during the pricing payment, the customer support handled it very well. I also received good responses when posting in the community forum while doing the project.

Previously, I have tried to use Zapier, which was very simple and linear, but I switched to Make because it provides visual representations that I find beneficial.

I have seen a return on investment, particularly in my second project where I converted PDFs into HTML format, saving costs on paper for approximately ten thousand questions and reducing time by about fifty percent. For patient case studies, I was able to present options in allopathy, homeopathy, and Ayurveda clearly and more quickly.

I have used the free version of Make and I find the pricing reasonable, especially with discounts available.

Before choosing Make, I evaluated Zapier, but after a friend's recommendation to use Make, the workflow has been very smooth for me.

Make saves me roughly forty-five percent to sixty percent of time since the analysis part and solution are provided below the question.

My advice to others looking into using Make is that you can create a very smooth workflow compared to others, and the visual representation is excellent for presenting data or any complex problems, especially for complex systems such as the neural, respiratory, and reproductive systems. The built-in modules make it easy to convert PDFs without needing to search for other modules to integrate.

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 comes my way, including reconciliation of bills and transaction tracking in Google Sheets, as well as GoHighLevel work. When I receive leads from Meta, I integrate those as well.

I have created an Airbnb scraper that extracts all details from Airbnb, including reviews and pinned locations, which are not very easy to obtain. I used Claude to create Python code, integrated it through Make, and used Apify. Make sends the command and prompt to Apify, which runs the code and scrapes all the details from Airbnb, then updates them in Google Sheets. Once any row is updated, Make automatically sends all details to every user. For example, when my name is entered in the Google Sheet, Make takes the name, email ID, company, and everything based on the flow I have configured, and sends the email automatically to that person. We have a company called Rental Abode, which is similar to Airbnb and we are building it now. I target them by scraping all details from Airbnb and sending it to them using Make.

Creating scenarios and sending them is really straightforward. I was doing manual tasks in the sheet before, and now Make makes everything easy for me. I can write the interior logic, whatever loops or anything I want, and whatever I was doing manually, Make now does it automatically. I only need to write one code and create a scenario, and based on that, it executes everything. This scenario is essentially a webhook, allowing integration from one site to any other site, which is quite interesting.

The data storage feature is also excellent. Whenever I'm using data, I can store all of it in Make, and whenever I need it, I can access it. The templates that Make provides are good, with everything built-in. I can use the data structure smoothly, and the custom app feature is also one of the best, as it's a good option for anyone who wants to explore.

The outcome is far better than before. Every employee used to work manually, and I also used to do manual tasks. Now Make does everything automatically. Whenever any task comes up, I'm always thinking about how to automate it with Make, which is something positive.

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.

I have been working in my current field for more than two to three years.

As of now, Make is stable for me.

Make has scalability. Whenever a new task comes to mind, I think about automating it with Make, which is good. However, I see many cheaper competitors emerging, so understanding their features could help.

I have not reached out to customer support because I haven't encountered any issues that I couldn't solve.

I was doing a manual approach completely before Make.

The setup was easy. I completed everything related to pricing, setup costs, and licensing within two or three hours.

I was supposed to hire a business analyst, but due to Make, I realized it has this much capacity. I can do multiple tasks as a founder, but I don't have time. So I created automations, saving me around 7 to 8 lakh INR.

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 click, it's pulling data from my database, updating in ChatGPT, and then analyzing and updating in the document. I can understand within five minutes what exactly is going on in the business and its direction.

I looked into Zapier, but it was more costly, so I chose Make.

If you want to automate everything, Make is the only thing you can use to integrate and automate all the platforms, especially if you don't want to work manually.

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.

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.

My primary reason for using Make is workflow automation. When it comes to scraping data from portals like LinkedIn or any other website and then storing it on a Google Sheet, that is the most time-consuming task. I was able to create a workflow and automate it through agentic AI, which was a significant achievement for me.

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.

Without really looking at many things, I feel that Make is a space where I can automate a lot of my work, and that says a lot.

When I think about automating my work with Make, I would say that the credits given on a monthly basis are useful for me to use them. The integration of webhooks and understanding how which particular tool can be integrated and how it can be played further is a significant achievement.

Make is a space which can be explored further. If I have to scrape data and if that consumes five to six hours, the fatigue that comes after doing repetitive tasks does not allow me to do any other work for another three or four hours. 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 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 have been using Make for close to about three to six months.

My rating for Make is 90 out of 100. I give it 90 because there is always scope for improvement, but I feel that this product is exceptional. I have not seen anything like Make so far.

A perfect 10 would mean there is nothing more to improve. A nine probably means there is scope for improvement, changes to be made, and relevance to be established. Even with the world's best service, I question whether the world really recognizes it or if it can be utilized economically. Giving me a thousand credits per month can be consumed quickly, but none of those things accumulates, nor is there an unlimited version that can wait until I become profitable before offering me the first paid plan. I give commitments based on the number of credits being offered.

Make is deployed in my organization on a public cloud. I use the make.com website itself. I signed up directly through the Make website.

I would say to make your first use case and understand what the product is. Each entrepreneur or executive must understand what inventory they add by taking a subscription to Make. When you realize you have a machine that can save you time, it still needs to be understood that it can save you time based on the credits. If the credits get exhausted quickly, then you cannot save any further time.

I am neither a partner nor a reseller. I am just a customer.

I think it is a wonderful product, and if the aspect of giving time-based or quarterly credits instead of monthly credits comes into play, it could allow an entrepreneur or executive at any designation in an organization to make one or two full cycles over a quarter, which could be a significant achievement. I rate Make at 90 out of 100.

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 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.

I'm working on multiple Make, n8n, and a lot of tools. For sending some proposals and login systems, I use a tool called Bubble. Some of the workflows that are complex on Bubble, we used to do with Make. For Google Docs, AI automations, and content creation, I have a couple of things, and email commenting and replies for that are some examples.

When I'm trying to build some workflows, there's a chatbot component. When I ask for something like this, it helps me in that. Or if I get a bug that I'm finding difficult to debug or understand the use case or the log, it clearly explains it to me and sometimes it advises me to do this or that, so that it's easy for me to fix it.

Real-time functionality is really needed in most cases. For example, in AI automations, when a customer signs up into my portal and I try to send them a reply, the data would synchronize so then I can send them accurate data. There are a couple of use cases which are complex that I cannot explain on the call.

Most of what I learned about Make is mainly from the templates only. Anything that I tried to do, I try to see who has done it already and try to understand and rebuild it.

The new AI feature that Make has launched is really amazing. The UI is pretty clear for me compared to Zapier. In terms of features, the flexibility of adding the code and doing all of that is the best thing that I appreciate about Make.

It's complicated to give good feedback, but it's helping me in saving a lot of time in terms of manual input. There's a huge cost cutting in my application when I'm using Make.

Most of what I learned about Make is mainly from the templates only. Anything that I tried to do, I try to see who has done it already and try to understand and rebuild it.

When I'm trying to build some workflows, there's a chatbot component. When I ask for something, it helps me in that. Or if I get a bug that I'm finding difficult to debug or understand the use case or the log, it clearly explains it to me and sometimes it advises me to do certain things, so that it's easy for me to fix it.

One area for improvement is an auto-building feature. Another is how n8n has a chatbot completion where you can bring some LLMs into the workflow and integrating Ollama and all of that is something I felt is really needed for Make also.

I have been using Make for three years.

I don't have any issues; it's as smooth as the other platforms, not very complex or hard to understand, but it's fine for me. It's working fine, and I don't have any major concerns about it, but my purpose and my use case is getting done. So I don't have many additional points there.

It's scalable. I don't feel that for my requirement, I'm getting the best out of it.

I haven't taken very much advantage of the services, but what I had earlier, they were doing the best job for my use cases and my problems. So they helped me. However, I'm not very extensively reliant on the customer support. I used to talk to the developers or the forum that Make was having. I used to go there and figure it out by myself. So very rarely I used to get in touch with the support team.

Something like n8n is an alternative. Recently I started learning to use n8n a lot, which has AI agent features, and it is open source. Right now, n8n is an open source platform. So I would be more interested in learning more and exploring more if Make is also an open source option. Because a lot of experiments can be done if it's an open source.

It's straightforward and easy for me because I come from a tech background. It's quite easy for me. I don't know if a person from a non-tech background would find it a bit difficult, but for me it's very comfortable.

I also referred to a couple of my internal team members and some of my clients to use Make for their business processes as well.

I've achieved a lot. The return is approximately 300%, and that you can think about, with an approximate range of around 500 to 600%.

It's perfect. It's cost-effective and it's pocket-friendly. I don't have many issues with the pricing part. Pricing is quite comfortable for me.

Something like n8n is an alternative. Recently I started learning to use n8n a lot, which has AI agent features, and it is open source. Right now, n8n is an open source platform. So I would be more interested in learning more and exploring more if Make is also an open source option. Because a lot of experiments can be done if it's an open source.

Each platform has its own keen usage and keen requirement. I feel that Make is doing the best of its use case. Each platform has its own specialty in terms of UI, workflow, or customer support in terms of building the tool more reliable to customers and accessible to people when issues come. For now I feel that it's doing good. I would rate this review a 9 out of 10.