Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Make vs Nintex Process Platform comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 11, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Make
Ranking in Process Automation
26th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
AI Software Development (20th)
Nintex Process Platform
Ranking in Process Automation
22nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Business Process Management (BPM) (22nd), Workload Automation (21st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Make is 1.2%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Nintex Process Platform is 2.0%, down from 2.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Nintex Process Platform2.0%
Make1.2%
Other96.8%
Process Automation
 

Featured Reviews

FA
Chief Executive Officer at Ashtex Solutions
Flexibility and efficiency accelerate business processes
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.
Hafiz Muhammad Usama - PeerSpot reviewer
Manager Mobility & Digitalization at Fatima group
Have experienced challenges integrating with other systems but have benefited from improved process automation
There are multiple areas that need improvement. Nintex Process Platform needs integration with other platforms such as Salesforce and other CRM platforms. There should be actions available so we can directly integrate with these systems. Additionally, there is a gap in mathematical actions and logical actions. We need to parse data, and if we receive data in JSON, there is no action available in Nintex Process Platform to parse the data and extract data from that JSON string. Such actions and logical actions must be available in Nintex Process Platform to increase its capability. For us, Nintex Process Platform is configurable with SQL Server, but there is no configuration option available with Oracle. We also use Oracle in multiple processes, but we have found no way to directly configure Nintex Process Platform with Oracle. We have to use SQL Server in between. We have to create a link server within SQL Server as a bypass to retrieve or post data into Oracle. There were multiple improvement points available.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"Make's front-end interface, the modular interface that it has, drag-and-drop interface, is very easy to understand, use, and integrate."
"Make's front-end interface, the modular interface that it has, drag-and-drop interface, is very easy to understand, use, and integrate."
"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."
"The most valuable features of Make are the additional options when compared to other similar solutions. For example, with Google my business, you can only do certain things with Zapier, whereas with Make, you can do a little bit more."
"Allows us to provide desktop/laptop and mobile solutions to our users."
"The SharePoint feature is a really good connection, there are many features that are good."
"I find it useful to utilize LDAP query action to find out the status of a particular user."
"The support is great; I found the support to be excellent with immediate responses whenever I open a ticket."
"The integration capabilities have been very useful."
"It's easy to configure your set of rules to make the form controls work perfectly, removing manual work and making processes seamless."
"It has helped us a lot, especially during the initial phase of a project where most of the things are done on paper."
"It leverages the out-of-the-box SharePoint back-end. This means that you don’t need to install or deploy additional infrastructure to support Nintex Workflow, unlike some of its competitors."
 

Cons

"The pricing of Make at this point is through operations consumption, and it becomes really expensive in certain scenarios when iterations are involved."
"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."
"The pricing of Make at this point is through operations consumption, and it becomes really expensive in certain scenarios when iterations are involved."
"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."
"The solution is a bit too expensive. It could be cheaper."
"User interface could use some improvement. Perhaps integration with Visual Studio or SharePoint Designer would be useful."
"I think it was lacking a little bit in its multiple in-house processes and other processes. So there is a little bit of a gap in collaboration."
"At times, issues arise in certain scenarios. In such cases, the versioning can become quite difficult. There may be no other way but to restart the entire process or rectify it at that point."
"The cost of the solution is high and has room for improvement."
"Converting a document from PDF to MS Word, or vice versa, needs to be improved."
"The management server and the admin page where you can manage processes need improvement."
"Because Microsoft announced that they will stop supporting Nintex Process Platform and Nintex Process Platform stopped supporting it as well, I will never recommend Nintex Process Platform Workflows or Forms in the near future, but Nintex K2 can be an option."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of Make is approximately $20 per month for the platform."
"It's more suited for enterprise level, not for small or medium-sized businesses (SMBs)."
"Nintex is around INR 200 per license in India, which is much cheaper. Smaller organizations are always looking for cost-effective solutions, and Nintex provides local solutions with very low pricing."
"Comparatively, it's expensive."
"Our maintenance costs are reduced."
"This solution is affordable and is cheaper than most alternatives on the market. We have a standard cloud license that costs about 20k per year."
"Prices for licenses of K2 are high."
"We pay on a yearly basis. It's my understanding that we pay approximately $11,000/year."
"Nintex products are expensive, but valuable. Licensing in on-premise was historically based on a perpetual model, where you’d license per Web front-end. However, they are switching exclusively to a consumption (subscription) model, where you purchase the number of workflows you think you’ll use in your environment, and can scale up from there."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Marketing Services Firm
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business17
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise25
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Make?
I find the pricing, setup costs, and licensing costs of Make to be reasonable.
What needs improvement with Make?
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 ...
What is your primary use case for Make?
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...
What do you like most about K2?
The latest version of Nintex has many features. We have a clear roadmap and the necessary application to integrate it into our platform.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for K2?
Nintex Process Platform is expensive. Prices relate to both features and the professional services necessary due to our lack of an implementation team.
What needs improvement with K2?
There are multiple areas that need improvement. Nintex Process Platform needs integration with other platforms such as Salesforce and other CRM platforms. There should be actions available so we ca...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Integromat
K2 blackpearl, K2 Five, Nintex Workflow
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Buan Consulting, Armadia
SEA Corp, Omnicom Group, Verizon, STIHL
Find out what your peers are saying about Make vs. Nintex Process Platform and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.