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.