Make vs Activepieces 2026: which is better?
Make vs Activepieces comes down to catalogue size and managed simplicity against open-source control and a different credit model. Make is my pick for most small businesses that want a mature visual cloud platform. Activepieces is attractive for technical teams that want cloud or self-hosting, open-source pieces and built-in AI workspace features.
Mike Says is a Make affiliate, with no commercial relationship with Activepieces. A qualifying Make purchase through a labelled link may earn me commission at no extra cost to you.
Quick verdict
Choose Make for 3,000+ apps, a polished visual builder and a large library of established workflows. Choose Activepieces if self-hosting, open-source integrations, flat team pricing or AI agents inside the same workspace carry more weight.
Ad · Try Make free →At a glance
| Category | Make | Activepieces |
|---|---|---|
| Free allowance | 1,000 credits/month | 100 credits/day |
| Paid entry | Core $12 for 10k credits | Plus $20 for 10k credits |
| Credit unit | Usually one module action | One run, with extra AI costs |
| Integrations | 3,000+ apps | 760+ open-source pieces |
| Hosting | Managed cloud | Cloud or on-prem |
| AI workspace | Agents, toolkit, Maia and MCP | Flows, agents, chat, tables and MCP |
1. Visual workflow building
Make's canvas lays out every module, branch and filter. It is especially good when you need to see data move through a complicated scenario. The platform has years of templates, community material and app coverage behind it.
Activepieces also uses visual flows, with branching, retries, wait points, subflows, error handling and approvals. It lets technical users write TypeScript for a difficult step while leaving the rest visual. Its product now groups flows with agents, chat, tables and MCP access.
My pick: Make for established visual automation; Activepieces for an AI-led open workspace.
2. Pricing and credits
Make Free includes 1,000 monthly credits. Core is $12 per month for 10,000 credits, Pro is $21 and Teams is $38 at that allowance. One module action usually counts as one credit, so multi-step scenarios can consume several credits per run.
Activepieces Free includes 100 credits each day. Plus costs $20 flat per month with 10,000 credits and up to five users. Team costs $200 with 50,000 credits and 25 users. On Activepieces, a standard run costs one credit however many normal steps it contains. AI steps add 2, 10 or 20 credits depending on the model tier, and agent actions use one credit each. Paid plans can use a customer-owned AI key to reduce the platform charge for an AI step to one credit.
Winner: it depends on workflow shape. Activepieces can look better for long standard workflows. Make may cost less at entry and has a larger app catalogue. Model one real process in both.
3. Integrations
Make states 3,000+ standard apps. That breadth reduces the chance that you will need to build a custom connection, and it is a strong reason to pick Make for a mixed business stack.
Activepieces states 760+ open-source pieces. Any REST or GraphQL API can be called through its HTTP piece, and pieces are written in open-source TypeScript. That is flexible, but a smaller team may prefer a ready-made Make app over maintaining its own piece.
Winner: Make for catalogue size; Activepieces for open extension.
4. Self-hosting and data control
Make is a managed cloud service. That removes server work and gives most small teams a faster start. Enterprise options include advanced security, on-prem connectivity and support, but the core service remains managed.
Activepieces can run in its cloud or on your own servers. The company also sells enterprise controls for air-gapped deployment, SSO, custom roles, audit logs and secret managers. Its pricing page says the service can use an EU cloud region in Frankfurt.
Winner: Activepieces when hosting location and infrastructure control are required.
5. AI agents and MCP
Make offers AI Agents, Maia, the AI Toolkit, AI Content Extractor, AI web search and an MCP server. These tools sit inside the same visual scenario system as its standard integrations.
Activepieces places Agents and Chat beside Flows and Tables. Its agents can select tools, use approvals and work with MCP servers. The paid plans also support customer-owned AI keys.
Both are moving quickly. Do not pick an agent platform from a staged demo. Test permissions, logs, failed runs, approvals and the cost of the model you plan to use.
6. Teams and governance
Make Teams adds team roles and shared scenario templates. Enterprise adds custom functions, enterprise integrations, 24/7 support and further security controls.
Activepieces Plus includes up to five users. Team includes 25 users, unlimited projects, global connections, SSO and standard roles. Ultimate adds custom roles, SCIM, audit logs, secret managers, Git Sync and dedicated support.
Winner: Activepieces has a clear flat-seat story on its public plans. Make has the advantage of a longer-established automation catalogue.
Who should choose each?
Choose Make if: you want the largest ready-made app choice, a mature visual experience, lots of learning material and no server work.
Choose Activepieces if: you want self-hosting, open-source pieces, several users on one flat plan, customer-owned AI keys or agents and flows in the same workspace.
My overall pick for most small businesses: Make
The broader integration catalogue and lower paid entry make it the safer starting point for mixed-app automation.
Ad · Try Make free →Affiliate link · I may earn commission from a qualifying purchase at no extra cost to you.
Final verdict
Make wins for managed breadth. Activepieces wins for open infrastructure and a credit model that can favour long standard flows. If self-hosting is not a requirement, I would start with Make. If it is, Activepieces belongs on the shortlist.