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

Top 10 Make Alternatives

Vendor: Make
4.0 out of 5
Badge Leader
Leave a review

Top Make Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Make based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Camunda, Pega Platform, and Appian. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. Make surpasses its competitors by offering unparalleled automation capabilities and seamless integrations, enabling efficient workflow management with an intuitive interface and extensive customization options that empower users to optimize their processes effortlessly.

Make Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Make, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Make Logo
Camunda
4.1 out of 5
Make Logo
Camunda
4.1 out of 5
Camunda's open-source platform is ideal for Java integrations. In comparison, Make's low-code interface excels in ease of use. Camunda offers flexibility in deployment, while Make focuses on cloud availability. Both promise positive ROI, though Camunda requires more initial integration effort.
Download Camunda vs. Make Report
Camunda's setup cost may be higher initially, reflecting its comprehensive features, while Make offers a more budget-friendly setup, catering to businesses seeking cost-effective automation solutions.
Watch a demo
View comparison
Pricing
Camunda's setup cost may be higher initially, reflecting its comprehensive features, while Make offers a more budget-friendly setup, catering to businesses seeking cost-effective automation solutions.
Make Logo
Pega Platform
4.1 out of 5
Make Logo
Pega Platform
4.1 out of 5
Pega Platform excels in rapid prototyping and comprehensive case management, offering significant ROI for enterprises. In comparison, Make's intuitive drag-and-drop interface and cost-effective pricing suit smaller organizations seeking budget-friendly automation solutions with extensive integrations and ease of use.
Download Make vs. Pega Platform Report
Pega Platform requires a higher setup cost, while Make offers a more cost-effective initial setup.
View comparison
Pricing
Pega Platform requires a higher setup cost, while Make offers a more cost-effective initial setup.
Make Logo
Appian
4.2 out of 5
Make Logo
Appian
4.2 out of 5
Appian offers a robust low-code development environment focused on business process management and rapid deployment. In comparison, Make provides extensive integration options and a user-friendly drag-and-drop interface, attracting those preferring custom functionalities and operational flexibility.
Download Appian vs. Make Report
Appian offers higher setup costs compared to Make, which provides a more budget-friendly option, highlighting the difference in initial price point between the two solutions.
View comparison
Pricing
Appian offers higher setup costs compared to Make, which provides a more budget-friendly option, highlighting the difference in initial price point between the two solutions.
Make Logo
SnapLogic
4.0 out of 5
Make Logo
SnapLogic
4.0 out of 5
SnapLogic offers robust enterprise capabilities ideal for large-scale integrations and complex processes. In comparison, Make is budget-friendly, perfect for simple automations and cost-efficient operations. SnapLogic's advanced deployment options surpass Make's simplicity, which appeals to budget-conscious tech buyers.
Download Make vs. SnapLogic Report
SnapLogic involves a higher initial setup cost, providing extensive enterprise-level features, while Make offers a more budget-friendly setup appealing to smaller businesses and startups.
View comparison
Pricing
SnapLogic involves a higher initial setup cost, providing extensive enterprise-level features, while Make offers a more budget-friendly setup appealing to smaller businesses and startups.
Make Logo
SS&C Blue Prism
4.1 out of 5
Make Logo
SS&C Blue Prism
4.1 out of 5

Make stands out with its flexible AI integration and low-code interface, appealing for automation efficiency. In comparison, SS&C Blue Prism excels in robust data handling and scalability, making it suitable for larger organizations needing complex automation solutions with diverse deployment options.

Download Make vs. SS&C Blue Prism Report
Make requires a lower setup cost compared to the more substantial initial expenses of SS&C Blue Prism.
View comparison
Pricing
Make requires a lower setup cost compared to the more substantial initial expenses of SS&C Blue Prism.
Make Logo
Zapier
4.2 out of 5
Make Logo
Zapier
4.2 out of 5
Zapier offers simplicity in connecting systems with minimal technical skills needed. In comparison, Make provides flexibility with complex workflow customization through a modular interface. Zapier users may appreciate ease of deployment, while Make's cost-effectiveness and control options appeal to budget-conscious buyers.
Download Make vs. Zapier Report
Zapier's setup cost is often higher than Make's, highlighting a cost-effective advantage for those choosing Make.
View comparison
Pricing
Zapier's setup cost is often higher than Make's, highlighting a cost-effective advantage for those choosing Make.
Make Logo
Make Logo
Nintex Process Platform
3.9 out of 5
Nintex Process Platform offers strong scalability and integration, appealing to enterprise needs. In comparison, Make's modular, low-code interface and affordability make it suitable for budget-conscious users seeking efficient automation.
Download Make vs. Nintex Process Platform Report
Nintex Process Platform has a higher setup cost compared to Make, which offers a more cost-effective option for initial installation.
View comparison
Pricing
Nintex Process Platform has a higher setup cost compared to Make, which offers a more cost-effective option for initial installation.
Make Logo
Temporal
4.3 out of 5
Make Logo
Temporal
4.3 out of 5
Make's low-code interface offers easy integrations, appealing to non-developers. In comparison, Temporal caters to developers with robust workflow tools. Make's pricing enhances ROI, while Temporal's open-source model minimizes costs. Make excels in customer service, whereas Temporal suits experienced users needing complex workflow management.
Download Make vs. Temporal Report
Make's setup cost is noted as straightforward and affordable, whereas Temporal's setup involves higher upfront expenses, highlighting distinct priorities in initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Make's setup cost is noted as straightforward and affordable, whereas Temporal's setup involves higher upfront expenses, highlighting distinct priorities in initial investment.
Make Logo
WorkFusion
3.8 out of 5
Make Logo
WorkFusion
3.8 out of 5
WorkFusion offers superior document recognition and scalable RPA for enterprise clients, excelling in complex workflows with its advanced analytics. In comparison, Make features a flexible, low-code interface with extensive integrations, suitable for smaller operations seeking cost-effective automation.
Download Make vs. WorkFusion Report
WorkFusion's setup costs are higher, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while Make offers a more affordable initial setup, appealing to budget-conscious users. This price distinction highlights WorkFusion's focus on comprehensive solutions versus Make's cost-effective approach.
View comparison
Pricing
WorkFusion's setup costs are higher, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while Make offers a more affordable initial setup, appealing to budget-conscious users. This price distinction highlights WorkFusion's focus on comprehensive solutions versus Make's cost-effective approach.
Make Logo
Dify
4.2 out of 5
Make Logo
Dify
4.2 out of 5
Make excels in pricing and customer support, offering vast integration options for efficient workflows. In comparison, Dify leads with innovative analytics and customizable dashboards. A tech buyer might choose Make for cost-effectiveness or Dify for its rich features and enhanced long-term benefits.
Download Dify vs. Make Report
Make offers a setup cost advantage with lower initial fees, whereas Dify requires a higher upfront investment, distinguishing the two solutions mainly in initial expense.
View comparison
Pricing
Make offers a setup cost advantage with lower initial fees, whereas Dify requires a higher upfront investment, distinguishing the two solutions mainly in initial expense.
Make Logo
Tray.io
3.6 out of 5
Make Logo
Tray.io
3.6 out of 5
Tray.io excels with robust API integrations and comprehensive workflow tools, suiting complex enterprise needs. In comparison, Make offers flexibility and simplicity with an intuitive design. Tray.io appeals to enterprises seeking customization, while Make attracts those valuing ease-of-use and swift deployment.
Download Make vs. Tray.io Report
Tray.io's setup cost is transparent and generally upfront, while Make offers more variations in initial expenses depending on user needs.
View comparison
Pricing
Tray.io's setup cost is transparent and generally upfront, while Make offers more variations in initial expenses depending on user needs.
Make Logo
Orkes
1 out of 5
Make Logo
Orkes
1 out of 5
Make offers competitive pricing and easy-to-use automation for small to medium businesses with straightforward needs. In comparison, Orkes provides robust scalability and enterprise functions, ideal for complex workflows, appealing to larger organizations needing comprehensive management and tailored long-term solutions.
Make requires a minimal setup cost, whereas Orkes may involve higher initial expenses.
View comparison
Pricing
Make requires a minimal setup cost, whereas Orkes may involve higher initial expenses.
Make Logo
Make Logo
BMC TrueSight Orchestration
4.0 out of 5
BMC TrueSight Orchestration offers extensive integration and security for complex IT needs, requiring intricate deployment. In comparison, Make provides intuitive tools and fast deployment, appealing to businesses seeking flexibility and cost efficiency. BMC emphasizes depth, while Make focuses on ease and rapid implementation.
Download BMC TrueSight Orchestration vs. Make Report
BMC TrueSight Orchestration's setup cost usually aligns with enterprise budgets, while Make offers a more accessible setup cost, appealing to smaller businesses.
View comparison
Pricing
BMC TrueSight Orchestration's setup cost usually aligns with enterprise budgets, while Make offers a more accessible setup cost, appealing to smaller businesses.
Make Logo
Rundeck
1 out of 5
Make Logo
Rundeck
1 out of 5
Make offers cost-effective task automation with a user-friendly interface for quick integrations. In comparison, Rundeck excels in detailed operational control, offering powerful orchestration and robust support, ideal for complex workflows. Each solution's features cater to different automation complexity needs.
Make has a minimal setup cost, focusing on simplicity, while Rundeck requires a more substantial initial investment, emphasizing robustness.
View comparison
Pricing
Make has a minimal setup cost, focusing on simplicity, while Rundeck requires a more substantial initial investment, emphasizing robustness.
Make Logo
IBM WebSphere BPMS
3.7 out of 5
Make Logo
IBM WebSphere BPMS
3.7 out of 5
IBM WebSphere BPMS is ideal for enterprises needing extensive customization and scalability with robust support. In comparison, Make attracts tech buyers seeking intuitive integration and rapid deployment at a lower cost, making it suitable for smaller organizations prioritizing efficiency and simplicity.
Download IBM WebSphere BPMS vs. Make Report
IBM WebSphere BPMS has a complex setup process that can lead to higher implementation costs, whereas Make offers a simpler, cost-effective setup. This distinct difference can influence the overall cost factor when comparing these two platforms.
View comparison
Pricing
IBM WebSphere BPMS has a complex setup process that can lead to higher implementation costs, whereas Make offers a simpler, cost-effective setup. This distinct difference can influence the overall cost factor when comparing these two platforms.

Related categories

Process Automation
AI Software Development
Business Process Design