| Feature | Linear | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Free Plan | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Pricing | Free / $8/mo | Free / $9–$29/mo |
| Rating | ★★★★★ 4.8 | ★★★★★ 4.6 |
| Key Feature 1 | Instant performance | Visual workflow builder |
| Key Feature 2 | AI issue triage | 1,500+ app connectors |
| Key Feature 3 | Cycles | Error handling |
Reach buyers comparing Linear and Make. High-intent traffic, direct conversions.
Linear edges out Make on user ratings (4.8 vs 4.6 out of 5), though both remain solid choices depending on your priorities. Both Linear and Make offer free plans, so you can test both before committing. Both tools are widely used by programmers, startups, agencies — the deciding factor is usually which specific feature set matches your existing workflow.
Put Linear next to Make and the differences surface fast — Linear is built around developer tools while Make leans toward productivity tools. Linear is best known for instant performance, whereas Make stands out for visual workflow builder. On aggregate user ratings Linear holds a slight edge (4.8/5 vs 4.6/5), though that gap rarely decides the match on its own.
Where Linear pulls clearly ahead is managing engineering sprints, roadmaps, and issue backlogs. A frequent plus in reviews: Generates results in seconds — instant performance runs noticeably faster than manual alternatives. Make, by contrast, is the stronger choice for building complex multi-branch automation with conditional logic. In its favour: More powerful than Zapier — especially for visual workflow builder workflows where Make consistently outperforms manual approaches. Trying to force either tool outside its lane is where teams usually get frustrated.
Linear is the best project management tool specifically for engineering teams that move fast — the speed and UX quality are genuinely better than Jira, and the AI features reduce administrative overhead. Make is the right automation tool for anyone who has hit Zapier's complexity ceiling. Bottom line: the "better" tool here is the one that fits the work you do most.
Choose Linear if you are focused on software engineering teams at startups and tech companies who want fast, opinionated project management without Jira's complexity — particularly teams that value developer experience and move quickly, or if a big part of your week goes to tracking bugs, features, and technical debt in one organised workspace. Its free tier also lets you validate the fit before paying.
Choose Make if your priority is technical users, developers, and operations teams who need complex automation with branching logic, data transformation, and multi-step processes — and who find Zapier too simple, especially for transforming and mapping data between apps with custom formulas. A free plan is available, so you can trial the workflow at zero cost first.
In day-to-day use, Linear feels strongest at managing engineering sprints, roadmaps, and issue backlogs, while Make is more at home with building complex multi-branch automation with conditional logic.
Learning curve is worth weighing. Linear has a known trade-off — Less suitable for non-engineering teams — worth evaluating before committing if this is central to your use case. On Make's side: Steeper learning curve — worth evaluating before committing if this is central to your use case. Budget a week or two to get fluent in either before judging the output.
Both tools offer a free plan, so you can trial each side by side before spending anything. Paid plans start at $8/user/mo for Linear (Standard) and $9/mo for Make (Core), making Linear the cheaper entry point at $8/user/mo versus $9/mo. The extra spend on Make only pays off if you need what its higher tier unlocks.
🚀 Ready to decide? Try both free and see which fits your workflow.
Linear is a project management tool built specifically for software engineering teams — prioritising speed, keyboard shortcuts, and a clean … Read the full Linear review →
Make (formerly Integromat) is a visual automation platform connecting 1,800+ apps through a drag-and-drop scenario builder. Unlike Zapier's … Read the full Make review →
• Generates results in seconds — instant performance runs noticeably faster than manual alternatives
• Built for engineering teams specifically
• AI triage saves hours of manual work
• Beautiful, minimal interface — especially for instant performance workflows where Linear consistently outperforms manual approaches
• Less suitable for non-engineering teams — worth evaluating before committing if this is central to your use case
• Less customizable than Jira — worth evaluating before committing if this is central to your use case
• More powerful than Zapier — especially for visual workflow builder workflows where Make consistently outperforms manual approaches
• Practical free tier that lets you validate the tool before committing to paid plans
• Highly customizable and flexible, allowing users to create complex automations tailored to their specific needs
• Cost-effective for high-volume automations, with a pricing model based on operations rather than tasks
• Steeper learning curve — worth evaluating before committing if this is central to your use case
• UI can be complex — worth evaluating before committing if this is central to your use case