Make.com Automation, Built for Scenarios That Don't Break

Usually, and the cause is usually the same: an iterator or aggregator that behaves differently when a bundle is empty or partial. We reproduce the failure with real data first, because fixing a scenario you can't reliably break just moves the problem.

Make is strong when you want a visual canvas, a large library of ready connectors and no infrastructure to run. n8n wins when you need self-hosting, want to avoid per-operation pricing at volume, or need real code in the middle of a workflow. We build both and have no incentive to push either.

Often significantly. The usual wins are replacing polling triggers with webhooks, batching per-record calls, and filtering earlier in the scenario so you're not paying to process records you discard three modules later.

Make handles a lot more than people expect, and the honest answer depends on where the complexity sits. Branching and transformation are fine. If you need long-running state, heavy computation or logic that's genuinely easier to express in code, a hybrid — Make orchestrating, a small service doing the hard part — usually beats forcing everything onto the canvas.

We start by working with what you have, because a rebuild throws away the business rules encoded in it, and those are rarely written down anywhere else. We rebuild only where the existing structure makes safe change impossible, and we say so before starting.