Head-to-Head
Make vs Activepieces (2026)
Make
Freemium★ 4.6
Activepieces
Freemium★ 4.3
Make.com and Activepieces are both positioned as power-user alternatives to Zapier, but they approach workflow automation from different angles. Make is a mature SaaS product with a sophisticated visual canvas, 1,000+ integrations, and years of enterprise use cases behind its feature set. Activepieces is the open-source newcomer that self-hosts for free and is building community-driven integrations rapidly. Make wins clearly on integration depth, visual workflow power, and feature maturity - its scenario canvas with loops, iterators, and error handling paths has no equivalent in Activepieces today. Activepieces wins on cost for self-hosted deployments and on data control for teams that cannot send workflow data to third-party SaaS platforms. The choice is practical: if integration library coverage and complex visual workflow building are your priorities, Make is the answer. If cost minimization, open-source customization, or data residency requirements matter, Activepieces is the right path.
Feature Comparison
Visual Workflow Builder
Make.com's scenario canvas is the most powerful visual workflow builder in the no-code automation category - it supports conditional routers, iterators, aggregators, error handler paths, and nested scenarios in a visual graph. Activepieces' builder is clean and functional for linear and moderately complex flows but does not yet match Make's depth for advanced scenario design.
Integration Coverage
Make.com has 1,000+ modules built and maintained by the Make team and verified app partners. Activepieces has 200+ community-built pieces. Both have HTTP modules for custom integrations, but Make's broader library reduces the need for custom API work.
Open Source and Self-Hosting
Activepieces is fully open source under the MIT license and designed for self-hosting - you can deploy it on your own infrastructure, audit the code, and contribute new integrations. Make.com is proprietary SaaS with no self-hosting option. For teams with data sovereignty requirements, this is a decisive factor.
Pricing
Activepieces cloud starts free (1,000 tasks/mo) with Plus at $10/mo; self-hosted is free. Make.com core is $9/mo for 10,000 operations - already quite competitive. For high-volume scenarios on cloud, Make has an edge over Zapier but Activepieces self-hosted beats both at zero SaaS cost.
Error Handling
Make.com error handling is a standout feature - you can define alternative execution paths when modules fail, set up retry logic, and configure error notifications without stopping scenario execution. Activepieces handles errors with notifications and retry options but lacks Make's visual error branching within the scenario canvas.
Enterprise Readiness
Make.com offers GDPR-compliant data residency options, team management, role-based access, and SSO for enterprise teams. Activepieces enterprise features are in early development - the community version lacks the compliance certifications and access controls that regulated industries require.
Community and Resources
Make.com has 10+ years of accumulated templates, tutorials, and community resources. Activepieces' community is small but growing quickly - the Discord is active and new pieces are shipping weekly. The gap in community resources matters most for users who rely on templates and third-party tutorials.
Verdict
This comparison is context-dependent. Make scores 29/35 and Activepieces scores 25/35. Choose based on your specific workflow needs.
Bottom Line
Make.com (formerly Integromat) and Activepieces both target users who outgrew Zapier on price and capability. Make ships a unique visual canvas (literal flowcharts with branches, iterators, and aggregators) that lets you build genuinely complex workflows. Activepieces is open-source, simpler in surface, and self-hostable. Make wins for power users building branching logic and large data transformations. Activepieces wins for teams who want OSS guarantees and predictable pricing. For most use cases between them, Make is more capable and Activepieces is more transparent.
Pick Make
You build complex multi-step workflows with branching logic, loops, data aggregation, and error handlers. Make.com ($9-$29+/mo) has the most expressive visual canvas in the no-code automation category. Best for power users, ops teams, and analysts whose automations are not just "if X then Y".
Pick Activepieces
You want self-hosting, open-source code, and the ability to write custom TypeScript pieces. Activepieces (free OSS, $0-$1,200+/mo cloud) gives technical teams full control with no vendor lock-in. Best for engineering-led teams and agencies running automations on behalf of clients.
Frequently asked
Is Make.com easier or harder than Activepieces?
Make is harder to learn but more powerful once you do. The flowchart UX with iterators, aggregators, and routers takes a few hours to grasp. Activepieces is closer to Zapier-style linear flows - faster to start, less expressive at the ceiling.
Which is cheaper for high volume?
Activepieces self-hosted has no per-operation ceiling - you pay only your VPS bill. Make charges per "operation" (every step in every run). For automations running 100K+ ops/mo, Activepieces saves real money; below 10K ops/mo Make is fine.
Can either replace n8n?
n8n competes with both. n8n is closer to Make in canvas expressiveness, closer to Activepieces in OSS posture. For a like-for-like Make replacement on OSS, n8n is usually a closer match than Activepieces.
Do both have AI steps?
Yes. Make has AI modules for OpenAI, Anthropic, and others natively. Activepieces has AI pieces plus the ability to chain AI output into custom code pieces. Functionality is comparable; Make has more polish, Activepieces has more flexibility.
Which integrates with more apps?
Make.com has ~1,800 integrations; Activepieces has ~280. For long-tail SaaS integrations, Make wins. For mainstream tools (Google, Slack, Stripe, HubSpot, Salesforce), both cover the basics.