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.

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.

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.