If you are evaluating no-code automation for your UK business, Make and Zapier will both appear near the top of any comparison list — and both will have enthusiastic advocates. The reality is that they are different tools with different strengths, and the right choice depends heavily on your technical capability, data volume, workflow complexity, and attitude to GDPR compliance.
This comparison is based on both platforms as of April 2026, with pricing converted to approximate GBP equivalents at current rates. Both platforms price in USD, so the GBP equivalent will fluctuate slightly with exchange rates.
Pricing: The Real Numbers for UK Businesses
Zapier uses a "tasks" model: each individual action in a workflow consumes one task. If a Zap has three steps, running it once costs three tasks. This makes Zapier's pricing somewhat unpredictable as workflows become more complex.
| Zapier Plan | Approx. GBP/month | Tasks/month | Multi-step Zaps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | £0 | 100 | No |
| Starter | ~£17 | 750 | Yes |
| Professional | ~£47 | 2,000 | Yes |
| Team | ~£64 | 2,000 (shared) | Yes |
Make uses an "operations" model: each module execution in a scenario counts as one operation. Similar to Zapier tasks, but Make's plans include significantly more operations for the same price, and unused operations do not roll over.
| Make Plan | Approx. GBP/month | Operations/month | Active scenarios |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | £0 | 1,000 | 2 |
| Core | ~£8 | 10,000 | Unlimited |
| Pro | ~£14 | 10,000 | Unlimited + more features |
| Teams | ~£26 | 10,000 | Unlimited + team features |
The pricing difference is striking. For a UK SME running moderate automation volumes, Make will typically be 3–5x cheaper than Zapier for equivalent functionality. The higher-volume Zapier plans escalate steeply.
GDPR and Data Residency: A Critical UK Consideration
This is where the comparison becomes particularly important for UK businesses. Under UK GDPR (which mirrors the EU GDPR post-Brexit), personal data processed through automation workflows must be handled with appropriate safeguards.
Make is headquartered in Prague, Czech Republic, and offers EU-based data processing as standard. For UK businesses, this means your automation data is processed in the EU under GDPR-equivalent standards. Make's EU infrastructure means Standard Contractual Clauses apply for UK-EU data transfers, which is the established legal mechanism and generally straightforward.
Zapier is US-headquartered and processes data primarily on US servers. For UK businesses processing personal data through Zapier workflows, this constitutes an international data transfer to the US. Zapier operates under Standard Contractual Clauses for EU/UK customers, which is legally valid but requires your organisation to document the transfer mechanism in your privacy framework. Some sectors — healthcare, financial services, legal — apply additional scrutiny to US data transfers.
For most UK SMEs, both platforms are usable under UK GDPR with appropriate documentation. However, if your automation workflows process sensitive personal data (health records, financial data, legal correspondence), Make's EU processing is the more straightforward compliance position.
Workflow Complexity: Where the Platforms Genuinely Differ
Zapier uses a linear, step-by-step builder. Each Zap is a sequence: trigger, then action, then action. Conditional paths (if this, do that; otherwise, do something else) are available but implemented as separate Zap branches. For simple to moderately complex workflows, this linear approach is intuitive and quick to build.
Make uses a visual canvas where modules are connected by lines — more like a flowchart than a checklist. This makes complex branching logic, loops, error handling paths, and parallel processing significantly easier to visualise and build. It also makes scenarios harder to understand at a glance for non-technical users until they have built familiarity with the interface.
In practice: if your workflows are mostly linear (trigger → 2–5 actions → done), Zapier is probably easier to use. If you need loops, complex conditionals, error handling branches, or workflows where data from multiple sources needs to be aggregated before processing, Make's canvas approach is meaningfully more capable.
Native UK Integrations
Both platforms have large integration libraries, but native support for UK-specific tools matters:
- Xero: Both platforms have solid native Xero integrations — invoice creation, contact management, payment matching
- Sage: Make has a Sage integration; Zapier's Sage coverage is more limited and may require workarounds for Sage 50/Sage Intacct
- Rightmove/Zoopla: Neither platform has native integrations; both require custom HTTP module connections to any available APIs (Rightmove's API access is restricted)
- Companies House: Neither has a native connector, but both can call the Companies House REST API via HTTP modules
- Royal Mail/DPD/Evri: No native connectors on either platform; carrier API integration requires custom HTTP calls on both
For UK-specific business software, Make's HTTP module is somewhat more flexible for custom API integration than Zapier's equivalent. Both are capable with sufficient technical knowledge.
Support, Documentation, and Community
Both platforms are US-operated, and support timescales reflect this. Email/ticket support on paid plans typically responds within 4–24 hours. Neither offers UK-hours phone support at standard pricing tiers.
Zapier's documentation is generally considered more comprehensive and beginner-friendly. Zapier University provides structured learning for new users. Make's documentation has improved significantly but can be harder to navigate for users new to automation concepts.
Community support: Zapier has a larger English-language community forum. Make (formerly Integromat) has an active community that skews slightly more technical. For UK-specific questions, both communities have relevant expertise, though you may find more familiar examples in Zapier's community given its US-English documentation default.
Migration Considerations
If you are considering migrating from Zapier to Make (a common direction given the cost differential), there is no automated migration tool. You will need to rebuild workflows manually in Make's canvas. For a business with 10–20 Zaps, this is typically a few days of work for someone who knows both platforms. It is worth doing it properly rather than a direct port — Make's canvas enables better architecture than a Zapier-to-Make literal translation usually produces.
The Decision Framework: Choose Zapier When...
- Your team is non-technical and needs the simplest possible interface
- Your workflows are linear and unlikely to become significantly more complex
- You need the widest possible native integration library and do not want to use HTTP modules
- You are already invested in Zapier's ecosystem and migration cost outweighs pricing savings
- You need Zapier's AI features, which are more developed and integrated into the platform at the time of writing
The Decision Framework: Choose Make When...
- Cost is a significant factor and you are running moderate to high automation volumes
- Your workflows involve complex branching logic, loops, or aggregation of data from multiple sources
- GDPR data residency is a concern and EU-based processing is preferable
- You have someone on the team who is technically comfortable and can navigate a more complex interface
- You need detailed execution logs, scenario version history, or more granular error handling than Zapier provides
- You are processing Xero data or other UK accounting software where Make's integration coverage is stronger
A Note on n8n as a Third Option
It is worth acknowledging that for UK businesses with even modest technical capability, self-hosted n8n increasingly competes with both platforms. At £0 per month for self-hosted infrastructure (you pay only your server costs — a £5–£10/month VPS is sufficient for most SME workloads), the cost argument for Make or Zapier weakens significantly. n8n's node library covers most of the same integrations, and being self-hosted means full control over data residency. The trade-off is the operational burden of maintaining your own instance — but for a business already running a VPS or using a cloud provider, this is a modest additional overhead.