Workflow Management
Make
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Make s.r.o. · www.make.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Make at a glance
- Vendor
- Make s.r.o.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Make 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Make, a workflow-management product, earns its highest scores on integrations and connectors, 6 to 8: a SAP ECC agent with 35 purchase, material and sales-order actions maintained by Make itself, an Enterprise-only on-premises agent for Windows Server, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and Red Hat, and over a thousand external services. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Make, a workflow-management product, earns its highest scores on integrations and connectors, 6 to 8: a SAP ECC agent with 35 purchase, material and sales-order actions maintained by Make itself, an Enterprise-only on-premises agent for Windows Server, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and Red Hat, and over a thousand external services. Process design scores 3 to 4 on a drag-and-drop builder with conditional branching and approve/decline links sent via email, Slack or Teams. The weakest scores are sovereignty, 0 to 2, and hosting and portability, 2 to 3: the engine runs in the vendor's AWS EC2 cloud with no region named, the on-premises agent bridges into private networks rather than hosting the engine, and we found no public information on subprocessors or a data processing agreement. Run reliability spreads 3 to 5 — help pages cover automatic retry and error handling, with no public information on failure alerting, replay or a status page. Governance and audit scores 5 to 6 on Enterprise-only audit logs kept 12 months. Only the free plan — no credit card required, no time limit — is publicly priced.
Speaks for it
- SAP ECC agent with 35 documented purchase, material and sales-order actions, supported and maintained by Make itself
- Enterprise on-premises agent installs on Windows Server, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and Red Hat, with one agent connecting many applications on the same network
- Custom steps in JavaScript or Python alongside over a thousand external services, with maintenance ownership stated per connector
- Audit logs kept 12 months at organization and team level, filterable by event, time period, user and team
- Security page claims SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3, with encryption at rest under AES-256 and AWS KMS
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 0 to 2, with no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, data residency, subprocessors — including the AI model providers behind the AI agents and Maia — or a data processing agreement
- The engine's only evidenced hosting is the vendor's AWS EC2 cloud with no region named; the on-premises agent is a bridge rather than a self-hosted edition, and there is no public information on exporting workflow definitions
- No public information on failure alerting, replay of a failed run from the failing step, or a public status page with an uptime commitment
- The documented approval is an approve/decline link via email, Slack or Teams, with no public information on forms, role-assigned approvals with substitutes, deadlines or versioning of a running process
- Audit logs are Enterprise-only, with no public information on separate development, test and production environments, SCIM provisioning or export of the audit trail
Best for
- You need to automate SAP ECC purchasing and materials processes and can license an Enterprise plan
- You must reach applications inside your corporate network, since one on-premises agent connects many applications on the same network
- Your team builds branching, multi-step automations and can fill gaps with custom JavaScript or Python
- You want to evaluate before committing — the free plan requires no credit card and has no time limit
Avoid if
- You need the workflow engine to run on your own infrastructure — the pages document a cloud engine on AWS EC2 and an agent that bridges into your network rather than hosting it
- Your approvals require role assignment, substitutes, deadlines and escalation — the documented approval is an approve/decline link sent via email, Slack or Teams
- Your compliance review requires a named hosting region, an EU contracting entity or a subprocessor list — the pages name AWS EC2 without a region, and sovereignty scores sit at 0 to 2
- You must budget a monthly cost before a procurement round — only the free plan shows a price, and the SAP connection and on-premises agent sit behind an Enterprise sign-up
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Process design, forms & approvals | 2 of 5 |
| Connectors, API & on-premise reach | 3.5 of 5 |
| Execution, error handling & monitoring | 2 of 5 |
| Governance, credentials & audit trail | 3 of 5 |
| Hosting options & portability | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
Process design, forms & approvals
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Modelling the process people take part in: a visual designer or BPMN, forms, approval steps with roles and substitutes, deadlines and escalation, and versioning of a process that is already running — judged on whether a business owner can change a process without breaking the instances in flight.
0 — No human steps at all: neither forms nor approval steps, only machine-to-machine automation.
3 — A visual builder with branching and a simple approval or form step.
5 — A visual designer with conditions and parallel paths, forms and approval steps assigned to roles or groups, and deadlines or reminders for open tasks.
8 — BPMN 2.0 modelling or an equivalent documented notation, versions of a process kept with running instances on their original version, substitutes and escalation chains, multi-stage approvals with four-eyes rules, forms in German with validation and file upload, a task inbox for participants, and a test or simulation mode before publishing.
10 — The process is a governed asset: version history with diff and rollback, migration of running instances to a new version documented, process analytics on cycle time and bottlenecks per step, and the design documented well enough that a business team can maintain it without the vendor.
The Process Owner
The visual builder with multi-step chains is real, and the leave-request template checks balances and team overlaps before routing approval to the manager by email, Slack or Teams with an approve/decline link. But I found no public information on approvals assigned to a role or group, a substitute for someone on holiday, deadlines that escalate, or what happens to executions already running when a scenario changes — exactly the four things my invoice approvals depend on. 1 3 4 6
The Integration Engineer
The visual drag-and-drop builder with multi-step scenarios and custom JavaScript or Python is documented, and the captured templates show real branching — the lead flow falls back from an email lookup to a phone lookup — plus an approval routed to the manager by email, Slack or Teams with an approve/decline link. That is a simple approval step, not governed participation: I found no public information on a forms designer, deadlines, escalation chains, substitutes or a task inbox. The pages also say nothing about versioning a process that is already running, so a business owner changing it without breaking live instances is not something I can see. 1 3 4 6
The Operations Analyst
A drag-and-drop visual builder with multi-step chains and conditional logic (the lead workflow falls back from an email lookup to a phone lookup), plus a real approval step: a time-off request routed to the manager with an approve/decline link via email, Slack or Teams. We found no public information on deadlines, reminders, substitutes, versioning of a running process, or a participant task inbox, so it sits below the mid tier. 1 3 4 6
The Head of IT
The visual drag-and-drop builder with branching is documented, and the leave-approval template routes a request to the manager with an approve-or-decline link over email, Slack or Teams — but that is template level. We found no public information on forms built in the platform, approvals assigned to roles or groups with substitutes, deadlines and escalation, or versioning of a process that is already running, so a business owner changing a live process without breaking it is not evidenced. 1 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
A visual drag-and-drop builder with chained and conditional steps is documented: a lead workflow that standardises contact data and falls back from email to phone lookup, and a time-off workflow that checks the employee's balance and team overlaps before routing the request to the manager with an approve/decline link via email, Slack or Teams. We found no public information on forms with validation, approvals assigned to roles, deadlines, reminders or substitutes, or versioning of a process already in flight — and the approval decision travels as a link in email or chat, with no public information on what record of that decision is kept. 1 3 4 6
The Skeptic
A drag-and-drop visual builder is shown, and the time-off template routes requests to a manager approval sent via email, Slack or Teams with an approve/decline link — a simple approval step farmed out to external channels rather than a managed task inbox. The lead template shows conditional fallback logic. We found no public information on forms with validation, role-assigned approvals with substitutes, deadlines and escalation, or versioning of a process that is already running. 1 3 4 6
Connectors, API & on-premise reach
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Reaching the systems a European company actually runs: maintained connectors judged by name rather than count, a generic HTTP and webhook step, custom connectors, and a way to reach systems behind the firewall without opening it.
0 — No connectors beyond email, and no API or webhook step.
3 — A catalogue of connectors to common SaaS tools, or webhooks and an HTTP step to call other systems.
5 — Named connectors with their triggers and actions documented, including Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace, a generic HTTP/REST step with inbound webhooks, and an API to start or query workflows.
8 — Connectors to an ERP or accounting system common in DACH (e.g. SAP, DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics), custom connectors buildable from an OpenAPI description or code, an on-premise agent or self-hosted runner reaching internal databases and file shares, SOAP and database steps, and connector maintenance ownership (vendor, partner or community) stated.
10 — Integration is engineered: a versioned public API with a deprecation policy, connector changelogs, rate limits per connector published, event-driven triggers rather than polling where the source allows it, and the vendor maintaining the German-market connectors (DATEV, SAP, ELO or d.velop) itself.
The Process Owner
A SAP ECC agent with 35 documented purchase-order, requisition and material actions, supported and maintained by Make itself, plus an on-premise agent with Windows and Linux installers that reaches many applications in one network, is the reach a Mittelstand actually needs. I found no public information on an API to start or query workflows, inbound webhooks, or a DATEV connector. 1 5 6 11 12
The Integration Engineer
This is connectors documented the way I want them: the SAP ECC Agent itemises its thirty-five actions — purchase orders, requisitions, materials, sales orders — and states Make maintains it itself, while the WordPress webhook app names its official vendor and another app is labelled community-maintained. The Enterprise on-premise agent installs on Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat or Windows Server and one agent serves every application in the same network, which is how you reach an internal ERP database without opening the firewall, and custom JavaScript or Python plus an MCP server cover the long tail. I found no public information on SOAP or database steps as such, connector changelogs, rate limits per connector, or a versioned public API with a deprecation policy. 1 5 6 11 12
The Operations Analyst
The SAP ECC agent lists 35 named actions across purchase orders, requisitions and materials with maintenance by Make itself, connector ownership is stated per app (official vendor or community users), and an Enterprise-only on-premises agent for Windows Server and Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/Red Hat reaches many applications on one network. A webhook action and real-time event triggers are documented; we found no public information on custom connectors from an OpenAPI description, SOAP or database steps, or rate limits and deprecation policy for a public API. 1 5 6 11 12
The Head of IT
The SAP ECC Agent is named with all 35 of its actions listed and is supported and maintained by the vendor itself, an Enterprise on-premise agent reaches applications inside the network with installers for Windows Server, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and Red Hat, and custom JavaScript or Python steps are documented. We found no public information on a generic HTTP/REST step with inbound webhooks, SOAP or database steps, or a documented public API to start and query workflows, so integration is strong on named ERP reach but the generic plumbing is unevidenced. 1 5 6 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Connectors are documented by name down to their actions: an SAP ECC agent with 35 purchase, material and sales-order actions supported and maintained by Make itself, a webhook module, custom code in JavaScript or Python, and over a thousand external services. An on-premises agent for Enterprise customers, with installers for Windows Server and for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and Red Hat, connects applications inside the corporate network, and maintenance ownership is stated per connector. We found no public information on a documented public API to start and query workflows, or on connector changelogs and rate limits. 1 5 6 11 12
The Skeptic
The SAP ECC agent is a named, Make-maintained connector with 35 documented purchasing and materials actions, and an Enterprise-only on-prem agent with Windows Server and Linux installers reaches internal ERP databases behind the firewall; custom JavaScript or Python steps fill gaps. The thousand-app catalogue mixes ownership models — the WordPress webhook app is "developed, supported and maintained by community users" — so the count says little about maintenance. We found no public information on documented Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace connectors, a generic HTTP step, SOAP or database steps, or a public API to start and query workflows. 1 5 6 11 12
Execution, error handling & monitoring
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens when a step fails at 3 a.m.: retries, error paths, alerting, an execution history someone can search, limits on runtime and throughput, and a status page that admits incidents.
0 — Nothing runs unattended: the product executes no automated workflows whose runs could fail or be monitored.
3 — Failed runs marked with a notification, and a history of recent executions.
5 — Automatic retries or an error path, an execution log with input and output per step, failure alerts by email or chat, and runtime or rate limits documented.
8 — Configurable retries with back-off and replay of a failed run from the failing step, queueing and concurrency controls, execution history retention stated per plan, monitoring exportable to the customer's own tools, and a public status page with incident history and an uptime commitment.
10 — Operations are designed for production: an SLA with service credits, horizontal scaling or high-availability setup documented for self-hosted installs, dead-letter handling, end-to-end tracing across workflows, and post-incident reports published.
The Process Owner
Execution logs are kept 30 days with an extended period offered on the Enterprise plan, the cluster runs over two zones, and help pages on automatic retry of incomplete executions and on error handling exist. I found no public information on failure alerts, documented runtime or rate limits, replay of a failed run from the failing step, or a public status page with incident history. 1 2 7 8
The Integration Engineer
The help centre carries pages on automatic retry of incomplete executions and error handling, log data is stored thirty days by default with an extended period offered on the Enterprise plan, the cluster spans two zones for availability, and a live observability view claims to cover third-party resources. That gives me retries and an error path; I found no public information on what the execution log records per step, failure alerts by email or chat, runtime or throughput limits, replay of a failed run from the failing step, or a status page with incident history and an uptime commitment. 1 2 7 8
The Operations Analyst
The captured help pages are titled automatic retry of incomplete executions and error handling — the retry-and-error-path baseline I need — and log data retention is stated as 30 days by default with an extended period on Enterprise. Beyond a marketing claim of seeing the whole stack live, we found no public information on failure alerts reaching email or chat, runtime or throughput limits, replay from the failing step, or a public status page. 1 2 7 8
The Head of IT
Help pages on automatic retry of incomplete executions and on error handling are among the captured pages, the security page states 30-day log storage with extended storage available on the Enterprise plan, and the cluster runs over two zones to guarantee availability. We found no public information on replaying a failed run from the failing step, queueing or concurrency controls, failure alerting, or a public status page with incident history and an uptime commitment — which is what I would need before letting anything run unattended. 1 2 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
The security page documents a two-zone cluster for availability and 30 days of log storage by default with an extended period on the Enterprise plan, the captured help pages cover error handling and automatic retry of incomplete executions, and an observability view promises a live picture of the stack including third-party resources. We found no public information on replaying a failed run from the failing step, failure alerting, export of monitoring to the customer's own tools, a public status page or an uptime commitment. 1 2 7 8
The Skeptic
Execution log data is kept 30 days by default with an extended period on the Enterprise plan, the cluster spans two zones, and help pages titled on automatic retry of incomplete executions and on error handling were captured — but without confirmable detail on retries, back-off, alerting or replay. We found no public information on failure alerts, runtime or rate limits, or a status page with incident history. 1 2 7 8
Governance, credentials & audit trail
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Keeping automation from becoming shadow IT: roles and permissions, SSO, where connection credentials are stored, separate environments with controlled publishing, an audit trail of changes and approvals, and what the execution log retains of the payload. An approval record is also a record of employees' behaviour (BetrVG § 87 (1) 6), so what the trail captures matters to a works council.
0 — No user management: one account per person or one shared login, with no team workspace.
3 — Admin and member roles with shared team folders or workspaces.
5 — Role-based permissions per workflow or folder, SSO via SAML or OIDC, credentials stored encrypted and usable without being revealed, and an audit log of workflow changes.
8 — Separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores supported, payload redaction or logging off per workflow, configurable execution data retention, and the audit trail exportable — with the fields it records about users described.
10 — Governance a works council and an auditor can both sign off: field-level masking of personal data in logs, delegated administration per department, a central inventory of every workflow and connection with its owner, certifications published (ISO 27001 or SOC 2), and documentation of what the platform records about individual users.
The Process Owner
Audit logs at organization and team level, kept 12 months and filterable by event, time, user and team — though on the Enterprise plan only — together with an enterprise SSO option, encrypted key management via AWS KMS, and SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 claims, give me something to show our works council. I found no public information on separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, an exportable audit trail, or payload redaction. 2 9 10
The Integration Engineer
Audit logs run at organization and team level with filters for events, time periods, users and teams and a twelve-month retention — Enterprise plan only, visible to organization owners and admins — and SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3 and GDPR are claimed. Credential requests collect third parties' connection credentials through secure request links while the provider keeps the right to revoke, re-authorize or edit them, which is the credential lifecycle handled properly. I found no public information on separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores, or payload redaction per workflow. 2 9 10
The Operations Analyst
Audit logs at organization and team level, filterable by events, time periods, users and teams, kept 12 months (Enterprise plan only), alongside role and team management, Enterprise customers using their own SSO implementation, and a credential-requests feature where the third party retains the right to revoke, reauthorize or edit. SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 are claimed on the security page. We found no public information on separate development/test/production environments with publishing approval, SCIM, external secret stores, payload redaction, or export of the audit trail, which holds it at the mid tier. 2 9 10
The Head of IT
Audit logs run at organization and team levels, are visible only to organization owners, admins and team admins, can be filtered by event, time period, user and team, and are kept for 12 months — Enterprise plan only — with SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 published and an option for Enterprise customers to use their own SSO implementation. We found no public information on separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores, payload redaction, or export of the audit trail. 2 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
Role and team management with organisation owners, admins and team admins, single sign-on including the customer's own implementation on Enterprise, AES-256 encryption with AWS-managed keys, and audit logs at organisation and team level — filterable by event, time period, user and team, kept for 12 months — sit alongside stated SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3. Connection credentials can be collected from third parties via secure request links whose senders keep the right to revoke, reauthorise or edit them. An auditor would note the audit trail is Enterprise-only while execution logs keep their payload copy for 30 days by default, and we found no public information on separate environments with a publishing approval, SCIM, payload redaction or masking in logs, or export of the audit trail. 2 9 10
The Skeptic
Audit logs with twelve-month retention and filters for events, periods, users and teams exist — Enterprise plan only, and visible to organization owners, admins and team admins. Credential requests collect third-party connection credentials through secure links while the recipient keeps the right to revoke, reauthorize or edit, and Enterprise customers can use their own SSO implementation. We found no public information on separate environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores, payload redaction or export of the audit trail. 1 2 9 10
Hosting options & portability
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the engine runs and whether the workflows can leave: cloud regions, self-hosted or on-premise editions, the licence of the engine, and export of workflow definitions in a format another tool or a later version can read.
0 — Workflows cannot be exported in any form and live only in the vendor's cloud.
3 — Cloud hosting with the region named, and workflows exportable as a file the same product can import.
5 — An EU cloud region available, workflow definitions exportable as documented JSON or BPMN 2.0, and an API to read definitions and execution history.
8 — A self-hosted or on-premise edition with its system requirements documented, workflow definitions versionable in Git, the engine's licence published, and a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted in both directions.
10 — The customer owns its automation: an open-source or source-available engine, definitions in an open standard executable elsewhere, air-gapped installation supported, and a stated exit process that hands back definitions, credentials metadata and execution history in documented formats.
The Process Owner
The captured pages document cloud infrastructure on Amazon AWS EC2 across two zones, and an on-premise agent — available to Enterprise customers — that connects to many applications in one network. No region is named for the cloud, and I found no public information on exporting workflow definitions in a documented format, on a Git workflow, or on a self-hosted edition of the engine itself. 2 11 12
The Integration Engineer
The engine runs in Make's own AWS EC2 environment across two zones; the Enterprise on-premise agent for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat and Windows Server extends reach into the internal network, but an agent is not a self-hosted edition of the engine. I found no public information on a named cloud region, an export format for workflow definitions, versioning in Git, the engine's licence, or a migration path in either direction — so I cannot see how a customer's scenarios would leave the vendor. 2 11 12
The Operations Analyst
The engine runs in the vendor's cloud on Amazon AWS EC2 private instances across two zones; we found no public information naming a region, an EU choice, or export of workflow definitions in a documented format. The on-premises agent is Enterprise-only and bridges to internal systems rather than hosting the engine itself, and we found no public information on a self-hosted edition, a published engine licence, or a migration path. 2 11 12
The Head of IT
The only hosting evidenced for the engine is the vendor's Amazon AWS EC2 cloud with no region named; the on-premises offering is a connector agent reaching internal applications, and we found no public information on a self-hosted edition of the engine itself. There is no public information on exporting workflow definitions as documented JSON or BPMN, on an engine licence, or on any migration path in either direction — as Head of IT I see no documented exit. 2 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
The engine runs in the vendor's cloud on Amazon AWS EC2 private instances across two zones, reachable only over VPN from a private network, and the captured pages name no region. The on-premises agent, offered to Enterprise customers with installers for Windows Server and common Linux distributions, is documented as a bridge to applications in the same network rather than as a self-hosted edition of the platform. We found no public information on exporting workflow definitions in a documented format or on the engine's licence. 2 11 12
The Skeptic
The engine runs in the vendor's cloud on Amazon AWS across two zones reachable only over VPN; the captured pages do not name a region. The Enterprise-only on-prem agent, with installers for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat and Windows Server, bridges into private networks, but the workflows still execute on the vendor's infrastructure. We found no public information on exporting workflow definitions in a documented format, Git versioning, the engine's licence or a self-hosted edition. 2 11 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where workflows execute and where execution logs with their payload copies are stored, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI model providers behind any AI steps. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. A self-hosted edition counts only for the data that actually stays on the customer's servers.
0 — Proven non-EU throughout: non-EU vendor and contracting entity, execution outside the EU, and no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, while an EU contracting entity and EU execution are not shown, or an EU region is an option under a non-EU contracting entity.
5 — EU execution and log storage stated (as standard or selectable) and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a data processing agreement; parts of the chain such as AI steps, support access or telemetry may run outside the EU.
8 — EU execution on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations including AI providers, a DPA covering execution payloads, and a self-hosted option that sends no workflow data to the vendor.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, AI steps runnable on European or self-hosted models, certification published, and a self-hosted edition that works without any call home.
The Process Owner not rated — no public information
I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where workflows and their log payloads execute, or who the subprocessors are: the security page claims GDPR and names Amazon AWS as infrastructure without naming a region, and the pages carry a Celonis, Inc. copyright. Nothing on the pages I read proves a data processing agreement, EU execution, or any other sovereignty dimension. 2 5 6
The Integration Engineer not rated — no public information
I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where workflows execute, where execution logs and their payload copies are stored, or who the subprocessors are — including the AI model providers behind the AI agents and the Maia assistant. The security page claims GDPR, SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 and names AWS as the infrastructure without a region, which proves none of the dimensions this criterion scores; unknown is not the same as European. 1 2
The Operations Analyst not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where workflows execute or where logs with their payloads are stored, or on any subprocessor list including AI model providers; the security page claims GDPR, SOC 2 and SOC 3 compliance, which is a compliance claim rather than an answer on execution location or subprocessors. 2 6
The Head of IT not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, on where workflows and their execution logs with payload copies are stored, or on subprocessors including any AI model providers; the infrastructure provider is named as Amazon AWS EC2 without a region and the site copyright names Celonis, Inc., but neither states where processing happens. Every sovereignty dimension remains unknown on the pages captured, so I score nothing here rather than guess. 2 6
The Data Protection Officer
The only location fact available is the infrastructure itself — Amazon AWS EC2 private instances — with no region named, alongside a GDPR compliance claim; we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, a data processing agreement, log storage location or any subprocessor list, and the copyright is held by Celonis, Inc. With AI agents, the Maia assistant and an MCP server driven from Claude, ChatGPT or Gemini in the product, the model providers behind those steps and where those transfers run are not identified on the captured pages. Until an EU region, an EU contracting entity and a subprocessor disclosure including the AI providers are shown, I cannot place this chain of transfers in Europe. 1 2 6
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on where workflows execute and where execution logs with their payloads are stored, the contracting entity's jurisdiction, subprocessors including any AI model providers behind the AI agent steps, or a data processing agreement; the captured pages show only a general GDPR compliance claim, hosting on Amazon AWS, and a copyright held by Celonis, Inc. Every sovereignty dimension is recorded as unknown, so we make no positive claim here. 2 5 6
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the monthly cost of their own processes from public pages alone: what the billing unit is (task, operation, execution, run, user or flow) and what counts as one, the allowance per tier, overage prices, and the cost of premium connectors, self-hosting, environments and AI steps.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A public "from" price or one tier priced, with the rest on request.
5 — Prices public for each tier with the billing period, the billing unit named and the allowance per tier given.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its unit defined (what counts as one task or execution), allowance and limits, overage priced per unit, premium connector and add-on prices listed, self-hosted licensing stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: the monthly cost derivable for a given number of workflows, runs and steps per run, with a published calculator or worked examples, every add-on and overage on a public page, and the effect of loops and retries on the count explained.
The Process Owner
The only pricing facts public are a free plan with no credit card required and no time limit, and that activating the SAP connection and the on-premise agent requires an Enterprise plan. No paid tier shows a figure on the pages I read, no billing unit or allowance per tier is defined, and I cannot put a monthly cost on an invoice request from this. 1 5 11
The Integration Engineer
The only pricing facts captured are the free plan — no credit card required, no time limit — and that the SAP agent connection and the on-premise agent sit behind an Enterprise plan for which these pages give no price. I found no public information on the price of any paid tier, the billing unit and what counts as one, allowances, overages or add-on costs, so a buyer cannot compute a monthly cost from what was captured. 1 3 5 11
The Operations Analyst
The free plan is public with no time limit and no credit card required, and an Enterprise plan is needed to activate the secure SAP connection — the only pricing signals the captured pages give. We found no public information on paid tier prices, the billing unit and what counts as one, allowances, overage rates, or premium-connector and AI add-on costs, so a monthly cost for a given volume of runs is not computable from public pages. 1 3 5 6
The Head of IT
Only the free tier is publicly priced — no credit card required, no time limit on the free plan — while activating the SAP connection requires an Enterprise plan whose price we found no public information on. There is no public information on paid tier prices, on the billing unit and what counts as one, on allowances, overages, or the cost of the on-premise agent and AI features, so no buyer can compute their monthly cost from public pages. 1 3 5
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages document a free account — no credit card required, no time limit, assigned automatically at signup — plus Enterprise gating for the SAP agent connection and the on-premises agent. We found no public information on prices for any paid tier, the billing unit and what counts as one, allowances, overage or the cost of Enterprise, so a buyer cannot compute a monthly cost from what was captured. 1 5 6
The Skeptic
The only public price on the captured pages is zero: a free plan with no time limit and no credit card required, plus a free trial. We found no public information on prices for any paid tier — the Enterprise plan is activated through a sign-up — nor on the billing unit, what counts as one task or execution, allowances or overages. 1 3 5 6
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Make
Is Make European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Make is based.
Where does Make store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Make have a free plan?
Yes. Make has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Make?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates n8n (3.5/5), Frends (3/5) and Appian (3/5) highest among the other 22 Workflow Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is n8n (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Make alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 51 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →