whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Workflow Management

Make

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

Make: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Make: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

Make alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Integration Engineer

Weighted verdict

Wires the ERP to the shop, the shop to DATEV and the CRM to everything else. Wants connectors documented by action rather than counted in logos, a generic HTTP step for the rest, an on-premise agent that reaches the SQL server without a hole in the firewall, and a failed run replayable from the step that failed.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Integration Engineer

Panel median The Integration Engineer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Integration Engineer
Process design, forms & approvals 2 of 5 2 of 5
Connectors, API & on-premise reach 3.5 of 5 4 of 5
Execution, error handling & monitoring 2 of 5 2 of 5
Governance, credentials & audit trail 3 of 5 3 of 5
Hosting options & portability 1 of 5 1 of 5

Process design, forms & approvals

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Connectors, API & on-premise reach

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Execution, error handling & monitoring

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Governance, credentials & audit trail

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Hosting options & portability

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about Make? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (12)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap help.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap www.make.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →