I’ve noticed something weird with Make. It’s counting operations for Airtable watch records even when my base is inactive. In just two days of no use, it racked up over 1200 ops!
This got me thinking about Make vs Zapier pricing. I always thought Make was the budget-friendly option, but now I’m not so sure. Zapier only charges for scenarios that actually run, not for checking if there’s new data.
Has anyone else experienced this? It feels like Make’s billing might not be as cost-effective as advertised. What are your thoughts on this? Have you compared the two platforms’ costs in real-world use?
I’m curious to hear about your experiences and if you’ve found ways to optimize costs on either platform. Thanks!
I’ve been using both Make and Zapier for a while now, and I’ve definitely noticed the operation count issue with Make. It’s a bit of a double-edged sword - the constant checking allows for near real-time updates, but it can inflate costs quickly.
One thing I’ve found helpful is to use Make’s built-in tools to optimize scenarios. Setting up custom date filters and using ‘Increment’ modules can reduce unnecessary operations. Also, for Airtable specifically, I’ve had success using the ‘Watch Fields’ module instead of ‘Watch Records’ - it seems to be more efficient.
That said, Zapier’s pricing model is more straightforward and often works out cheaper for simpler automations. But for complex workflows, I still find Make’s flexibility and power hard to beat, even with the higher operation counts.
It really comes down to your specific needs and usage patterns. I’d recommend closely monitoring your actual usage on both platforms for a month or two to get a true cost comparison for your particular case.
I’ve encountered similar issues with Make. While it’s marketed as cost-effective, those background operations can add up quickly. In my experience, the key is to fine-tune your scenario settings. Adjusting the polling intervals and implementing more precise filters can significantly reduce unnecessary operations.
That said, Zapier’s pricing model does offer more predictability. You’re only charged for actual task executions, which aligns better with actual usage. However, Make still has an edge in complex automation scenarios, where its advanced features can justify the extra cost.
Ultimately, the cost-effectiveness depends on your specific use case. For simple automations, Zapier might be more economical. For complex workflows, Make’s flexibility could outweigh the operation costs. It’s worth doing a thorough cost-benefit analysis based on your particular needs.