| Feature | Make | Skyvern |
|---|---|---|
| Free Plan | ✓ Yes | ✓ Yes |
| Pricing | Free / $9–$29/mo | Free / $0.10 per task |
| Rating | ★★★★★ 4.6 | ★★★★☆ 4.3 |
| Key Feature 1 | Visual workflow builder | Vision-based navigation |
| Key Feature 2 | 1,500+ app connectors | Natural language tasks |
| Key Feature 3 | Error handling | Form filling |
Reach buyers comparing Make and Skyvern. High-intent traffic, direct conversions.
Make edges out Skyvern on user ratings (4.6 vs 4.3 out of 5), though both remain solid choices depending on your priorities. Both Make and Skyvern offer free plans, so you can test both before committing. Make tends to be favoured by agencies and freelancers, while Skyvern is more popular with enterprises.
Put Make next to Skyvern and the differences surface fast — Make is built around productivity tools while Skyvern leans toward agents. Make is best known for visual workflow builder, whereas Skyvern stands out for vision-based navigation. On aggregate user ratings Make holds a slight edge (4.6/5 vs 4.3/5), though that gap rarely decides the match on its own.
Where Make pulls clearly ahead is building complex multi-branch automation with conditional logic. A frequent plus in reviews: More powerful than Zapier — especially for visual workflow builder workflows where Make consistently outperforms manual approaches. Skyvern, by contrast, is the stronger choice for automating form submission across websites without writing browser automation code. In its favour: Doesn't break when websites update layouts. Picking based on which of those jobs you actually do day to day beats chasing a longer feature list.
Make is the right automation tool for anyone who has hit Zapier's complexity ceiling. Skyvern is the most robust web automation approach — using visual understanding rather than CSS selectors means it survives website redesigns that break Playwright/Selenium scripts. If you only have budget or appetite for one, match the tool to your heaviest workflow rather than the spec sheet.
Choose Make if you are focused on 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, or if a big part of your week goes to transforming and mapping data between apps with custom formulas. Its free tier also lets you validate the fit before paying.
Choose Skyvern if your priority is developers and operations teams who need to automate repetitive browser tasks — form submission, data extraction, web scraping — without fragile CSS selectors or manual Selenium maintenance, especially for scraping data from websites that change layouts frequently. A free plan is available, so you can trial the workflow at zero cost first.
Real-world output tracks the ratings closely: Make at 4.6/5 and Skyvern at 4.3/5, with the difference showing up most in building complex multi-branch automation with conditional logic.
Learning curve is worth weighing. Make has a known trade-off — Steeper learning curve — worth evaluating before committing if this is central to your use case. On Skyvern's side: Slower than scripted RPA on stable sites — can be a bottleneck during high-traffic periods or when processing large batches. Whichever one slots into your current stack with the least friction tends to win in the long run.
Both tools offer a free plan, so you can trial each side by side before spending anything. Make is priced Free / $9–$29/mo and Skyvern Free / $0.10 per task; map the tier you'd actually buy against your real usage before committing.
🚀 Ready to decide? Try both free and see which fits your workflow.
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 →
Skyvern is an open-source AI agent for browser automation — using computer vision and LLMs to navigate websites, fill forms, and extract dat… Read the full Skyvern review →
• 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
• Doesn't break when websites update layouts
• Natural language task descriptions — especially for vision-based navigation workflows where Skyvern consistently outperforms manual approaches
• Open-source codebase — self-host for full data control, audit the code, or contribute to the community
• Handles complex multi-step web workflows
• Slower than scripted RPA on stable sites — can be a bottleneck during high-traffic periods or when processing large batches
• Computer vision adds latency per page