Make vs Power Automate 2026: which is better?
Make vs Power Automate is a close comparison for business automation, but the better choice depends on your software stack. Make is my pick for visual cloud workflows across many apps. Power Automate is stronger inside Microsoft 365 and when desktop robotic automation is part of the job.
Mike Says is a Make affiliate, with no commercial relationship with Microsoft. A qualifying Make purchase through a labelled link may earn me commission at no extra cost to you.
Quick verdict
Choose Make for a clear visual builder, a permanent cloud free tier and workflows spanning many SaaS tools. Choose Power Automate if your organisation is centred on Microsoft 365, Dataverse and Windows, or needs attended and unattended desktop flows.
Ad · Try Make free →At a glance
| Category | Make | Power Automate |
|---|---|---|
| Free option | Permanent, 1,000 credits/month | 30-day trial |
| Paid entry | Core $12/month for 10k credits | Premium $15 user/month, yearly |
| Main strength | Visual multi-app cloud automation | Microsoft cloud and desktop automation |
| Desktop RPA | Not the core product | Attended and unattended options |
| Integrations | 3,000+ apps stated | Standard, premium and custom connectors |
| Best fit | Creators, agencies and small firms | Microsoft-led organisations |
1. Building workflows
Make uses a canvas where apps and actions appear as connected modules. Routers, filters, iterators and error paths are visible in the scenario, which makes a multi-step process easier to inspect. The Free plan includes the visual builder, routers, filters and access to 3,000+ apps.
Power Automate builds cloud flows around Microsoft connectors, triggers and actions. It also includes desktop flows, which can operate software through a user interface when no suitable API exists. That gives Power Automate a category of work that Make does not target in the same way.
My pick: Make for visual cloud workflows; Power Automate for desktop RPA.
2. Pricing
Make Free includes 1,000 credits per month, two active scenarios and a 15-minute minimum schedule. Core is listed at $12 per month for 10,000 credits and adds unlimited active scenarios, one-minute scheduling and API access. Pro is $21 and Teams is $38 at the same 10,000-credit level.
Power Automate offers a 30-day trial. Premium is listed at $15 per user per month when paid yearly. It includes cloud flows, attended desktop flows and a small process-mining allowance. Process costs $150 per bot each month for unattended automation. Hosted Process is $215 per bot and includes a Microsoft-hosted virtual machine.
Winner: Make for a permanent free starting point. Power Automate pricing becomes more specialised as desktop automation enters the plan.
3. Usage and cost control
In Make, each module action normally consumes one credit. A scenario with one trigger and five actions can use several credits each time it runs. Make sells higher monthly allowances and extra bundles, so map the modules and expected runs before choosing a plan.
Power Automate is licensed by user or bot rather than by a simple public action counter. The trade-off is licensing complexity. Connector type, attended or unattended use, environment and Microsoft entitlements can affect what you need.
Small teams may find Make's meter easier to model. Larger Microsoft estates may already have relevant rights and governance processes, so the licence conversation needs the organisation's administrator.
4. Microsoft 365 and Dataverse
Power Automate sits inside the Microsoft Power Platform. It connects naturally with SharePoint, Teams, Outlook, Excel, Dynamics 365 and Dataverse. Premium includes Dataverse storage entitlements, and enterprise IT teams can apply Microsoft identity and environment controls.
Make also connects to many Microsoft services, but it remains an external automation platform. That is often an advantage for mixed stacks, but it may add another supplier and control surface in a Microsoft-only business.
Winner: Power Automate for a Microsoft-first organisation.
5. Breadth and ease of use
Make promotes 3,000+ apps and a visual-first interface. It suits workflows that cross marketing, ecommerce, CRM, forms, databases and communication tools. A non-developer can still build complex branches, although data mapping and error handling take practice.
Power Automate has a large connector catalogue and strong business-system coverage. Its cloud builder is approachable, but the wider Power Platform, licences, environments, gateways and desktop components add more concepts.
Winner: Make for a mixed SaaS stack and a cleaner starting path.
6. AI and agents
Make includes AI applications, Make AI Agents, Maia, an AI Toolkit, AI content extraction and an MCP server across its product range. Credit usage still matters, and external model charges may apply when you connect your own key.
Power Automate connects with Microsoft Copilot Studio and the wider Microsoft AI stack. Copilot Studio has separate credit purchasing and requires an Azure subscription for agents according to Microsoft's pricing page.
Pick the ecosystem you already use. Both can run AI-assisted work, but governance and connected data matter as much as the demo.
Who should choose each?
Choose Make if: you want a permanent free cloud plan, a visual scenario map, lots of SaaS connections or a fast route for a small team.
Choose Power Automate if: most work happens in Microsoft 365, you need desktop flows, your IT team already manages Power Platform or Dataverse is central.
My pick for most small mixed-stack teams: Make
The free plan lets you build a real cloud workflow before paying, and the visual canvas makes complex routes easier to inspect.
Ad · Try Make free →Affiliate link · I may earn commission from a qualifying purchase at no extra cost to you.
Final verdict
Make is the better general starting point for cloud automation across varied apps. Power Automate is the stronger strategic choice for Microsoft-led companies and any job that needs desktop RPA. A short proof of concept in the real software stack is worth far more than comparing feature counts alone.