No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Make vs Orkes comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 15, 2026

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
6th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
AI Software Development (5th)
Orkes
Ranking in Process Automation
35th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (28th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Process Automation category, the mindshare of Make is 1.4%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Orkes is 1.4%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Process Automation Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Make1.4%
Orkes1.4%
Other97.2%
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.
Use Orkes?
Leave a review
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Process Automation solutions are best for your needs.
886,664 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
12%
Educational Organization
10%
Construction Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
13%
Retailer
8%
Construction Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise6
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Make?
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...
What needs improvement with Make?
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. T...
What is your primary use case for Make?
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 ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

Integromat
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Buan Consulting, Armadia
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Camunda, BMC, Temporal Technologies and others in Process Automation. Updated: April 2026.
886,664 professionals have used our research since 2012.