Make.com Pricing in 2026 — Quick Answer (TL;DR)
Here's the complete plan overview at a glance. All prices reflect Make.com's updated 2026 credit structure.
| Plan | Monthly Price | Annual Price (per mo.) | Credits/Month | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | $0 | 1,000 | Testing & learning |
| Core | $10.59 | $9/mo | 10,000 | Solo users & light automation |
| Pro | $18.82 | $16/mo | 10,000 + advanced features | Power users & growing workflows |
| Teams | $34.12 | $29/mo | 10,000 + multi-user controls | Small teams & collaboration |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | Custom | Large orgs & compliance needs |
Last verified: April 2026. Pricing reflects Make.com's updated credit structure.
Why Make.com Pricing Confuses Most People (And How to Fix That)
Most people come to Make.com from Zapier, where billing is simple: one task = one action step in a Zap. You run 1,000 tasks, you use 1,000 task credits. Done.
Make.com works differently — and that difference catches people off guard on their first invoice.
Make charges by operations, which map to individual module executions inside a scenario. A single automation that touches five apps executes five operations. Run that scenario 200 times in a month and you've consumed 1,000 operations — your entire Free plan budget, gone.
Key insight
Your real monthly consumption is a function of scenario complexity × run frequency, not just the number of automations you have active.
Operations vs. Credits vs. Tasks — Defined Once, Clearly
- Operation: One module execution inside a Make scenario. A five-module scenario = five operations per run.
- Credit: Make.com's billing unit. As of 2026, one operation = one credit on standard app connections. Premium connectors may consume additional credits.
- Task (Zapier): One action step executed in a Zap. Comparable to one operation, but Zapier's definition is more predictable because most Zaps are linear.
Worked Example — A 5-Step Lead Capture Scenario
| Module | Credits Used |
|---|---|
| Webhook trigger (receives form data) | 1 credit |
| Filter module (checks lead quality) | 1 credit |
| HTTP request (enriches data via Clearbit) | 1 credit |
| Google Sheets (logs the lead) | 1 credit |
| Slack (sends notification to sales channel) | 1 credit |
| Total per run | 5 credits |
Run this scenario 200 times/month = 1,000 credits consumed. That exhausts your entire Free plan in a single moderate-volume workflow. At Core (10,000 credits), the same scenario supports 2,000 runs per month before you hit the ceiling.
Every Make.com Plan Broken Down (2026)
Free Plan — What You Actually Get (and Where It Breaks)
$0/month · 1,000 credits · 2 active scenarios · 15-day data history
The Free plan is genuinely useful for learning Make.com and validating a single automation idea. But it has hard walls that most real workflows hit within days:
- 1,000 credits/month sounds reasonable until you remember every module execution counts
- 2 active scenarios means you can't build a real automation stack
- No priority support, no custom variables, no execution history beyond 15 days
Realistic runway: A basic CRM-to-email scenario running twice a day (10 modules) burns through 600 credits/month. Add one more workflow and you're over the limit.
Best for: Testing Make.com before committing. Not viable as a production environment.
Core Plan — Best Entry Point for Individuals?
$10.59/month ($9/mo annual) · 10,000 credits · Unlimited active scenarios · 30-day execution history
Core is where Make.com becomes genuinely usable. Unlimited active scenarios removes the biggest constraint from the Free plan, and 10,000 credits supports moderate automation workloads.
Break-even on extra credits: Make charges approximately $9 per 10,000 additional credits on Core. If you're regularly buying one extra credit pack per month, you're at $19.59 — close enough to Pro pricing that upgrading makes more financial sense.
Best for: Freelancers, solo operators, and individuals automating personal or small business workflows at low-to-moderate volume.
Pro Plan — When Does It Justify the Jump?
$18.82/month ($16/mo annual) · 10,000 credits · Custom variables · Full execution history · Priority support
The Pro plan's value isn't more credits — it's features. If you're on Core and finding yourself debugging scenarios without adequate history, or needing custom variables for complex logic, Pro addresses those gaps directly.
The math on overages: At roughly $9 per 10,000 extra credits, buying two credit packs on Core ($10.59 + $18) costs $28.59/month. Pro at $18.82 becomes cheaper the moment you need even one feature unlock.
Best for: Power users, developers building complex workflows, and anyone who needs execution history for debugging production automations.
Teams Plan — Real Multi-User Value or Overpriced?
$34.12/month ($29/mo annual) · 10,000 credits (shared) · Role-based permissions · Shared scenario library
The Teams plan sounds appealing for agencies, but the math deserves scrutiny. The shared 10,000-credit pool doesn't scale with team size — a three-person team running active workflows will exhaust that faster than a solo user on Pro.
Where Teams wins
Collaboration: shared scenario templates, role permissions, one invoice for multiple users. Genuine value over maintaining separate Pro accounts.
Where it doesn't
Pure volume. A small agency managing multiple client workflows will likely need significant credit top-ups, raising true monthly cost above the sticker price.
Best for: Small internal teams (2–5 people) who need shared access and centralized management more than raw operation volume.
Make.com vs. Zapier vs. n8n vs. Lindy — Side-by-Side (2026)
| Make.com | Zapier | n8n | Lindy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Credits/operations | Tasks | Node executions (self-hosted: free) | AI action credits |
| Free tier | 1,000 ops/mo | 100 tasks/mo | Unlimited (self-hosted) | Limited trial |
| ~10k ops/month cost | ~$10–19/mo | ~$49–73/mo | ~$0–20/mo (hosting) | Varies by AI usage |
| Ease of use | Moderate | High | Low–Moderate | High |
| AI capabilities | Via modules | Via modules | Via nodes | Native AI-first |
| Best for | Complex multi-step workflows | Simple integrations, non-technical users | Developers, cost-sensitive teams | AI agent automation |
The key insight
Zapier is dramatically more expensive at scale — roughly 3–5× Make's cost at equivalent operation volumes. n8n self-hosted essentially eliminates per-operation costs entirely, but requires server management. Lindy targets a different use case (AI agents) rather than traditional workflow automation.
Which Make.com Plan Is Right for You? (By User Profile)
Solo Freelancer / Creator
Typical stack: Client onboarding form → CRM → invoice generation → Slack notification
Monthly op estimate: 3,000–6,000 credits
Recommended: Core ($9/mo annual)
Unlimited scenarios covers your full automation suite; 10,000 credits handles moderate volume. Upgrade to Pro only when you need custom variables or hit credit limits consistently.
Small SaaS or Startup Team (2–10 people)
Typical stack: Lead capture → enrichment → CRM → email sequences → analytics logging
Monthly op estimate: 15,000–40,000 credits
Recommended: Teams ($29/mo) + credit top-ups, or multiple Pro accounts
At high volume, multiple Pro accounts can be more cost-effective than a single Teams account with overages. Run the numbers based on actual consumption before defaulting to Teams.
Agency Managing Multiple Client Workspaces
Typical stack: Separate workflow environments per client, white-label reporting, client-specific integrations
Monthly op estimate: 50,000+ credits across all client accounts
Recommended: Enterprise (custom pricing) or n8n self-hosted for cost control
Make.com's workspace model isn't optimized for agencies managing 10+ clients. At this scale, n8n's self-hosted model or an enterprise Make contract with negotiated credit pricing makes significantly more financial sense than stacking Teams accounts.
The Upgrade Trigger Checklist — When to Move to the Next Plan
Use this to decide when it's time to upgrade — no guesswork required.
Free → Core
- ☐ You have more than 2 workflows you want to keep active
- ☐ You're hitting the 1,000 credit cap before month end
- ☐ You need more than 15 days of execution history
Core → Pro
- ☐ You're buying extra credit packs more than once per month
- ☐ You need custom variables for branching logic
- ☐ You're debugging production scenarios and 30-day history isn't enough
- ☐ Your scenarios use advanced scheduling or need priority support
Pro → Teams
- ☐ Two or more people need to edit or manage scenarios
- ☐ You need role-based permissions and centralized billing
- ☐ A shared scenario template library would save meaningful time
Teams → Enterprise
- ☐ You're managing 10+ team members or client workspaces
- ☐ Compliance, SSO, or SLA requirements apply
- ☐ You're spending $200+/month on credit top-ups consistently
Real Cost Case Study — A Lead Enrichment Pipeline Priced Across Every Plan
The automation: Webhook (receives lead) → HTTP enrichment (Clearbit) → filter (quality check) → HubSpot CRM update → Slack notification → Google Sheets log
Modules per run: 6 credits
Volume: 500 leads/month = 3,000 credits
| Plan | Monthly Cost | Covers This? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Make Free | $0 | No | 1,000 credit cap — exhausted after ~166 leads |
| Make Core | $9 | Yes | 10,000 credits — 7,000 credits to spare |
| Make Pro | $16 | Yes | Same credits + custom variables, better debugging |
| Make Teams | $29 | Yes | Only worth it if multiple users manage this pipeline |
| Zapier Professional | ~$73 | Yes | Same 3,000 tasks — ~4.5× more expensive than Core |
Bottom line: For this specific workflow at 500 runs/month, Make.com Core at $9/month is the clear winner. Zapier charges roughly $64 more per month for identical functionality.
The Smart Alternative for AI-First Teams
If the credit-counting overhead is the part of this evaluation you dread most, it's worth considering whether Make.com's model is the right fit at all. AI-native automation platforms approach the problem differently: instead of counting module executions, they're designed around outcomes — what you're trying to accomplish, not how many nodes your workflow passes through.
Why EasyClaw Is Built for AI-First Automation
For teams whose automation work is primarily AI-driven — summarization, classification, drafting, research — EasyClaw eliminates the entire "how many credits will this consume?" calculation. It's a desktop-native AI agent platform designed to handle AI-heavy workflows without the complexity overhead of credit-based models.
- ✓ Native AI-first architecture — no module-counting overhead
- ✓ Runs locally on your machine — your data never leaves your environment
- ✓ Built for content teams, SEO workflows, and AI research pipelines
- ✓ No per-operation billing surprises — predictable usage model
If your automation stack is 70%+ AI actions rather than structured data routing, evaluating EasyClaw alongside Make.com is worth 30 minutes of your time before committing to an annual plan.
Is Make.com Worth It in 2026? Final Verdict
Make.com is clearly the best value for
Developers and technical users building complex, multi-step automations at moderate-to-high volume. The credit model rewards efficiency — well-designed scenarios cost less than bloated ones, which encourages good automation architecture.
A competitor wins for
Non-technical users who need reliability and simplicity above all else. Zapier's predictability (one task = one charge, no complexity multiplier) is worth the premium for users who don't want to think about operation counts.
Action Plan
- Start on the Free plan to validate your first workflow
- Upgrade to Core ($9/mo annual) when you hit 2 active scenarios or approach 800 credits/month
- Move to Pro when you buy your second extra credit pack or need custom variables
- Revisit Teams only when collaboration — not volume — becomes the bottleneck
Frequently Asked Questions About Make.com Pricing
Q: Is Make.com free?
A: Yes — Make.com has a permanent free plan with 1,000 operations/month and 2 active scenarios. It's sufficient for testing but limited for production use.
Q: How does Make.com billing work?
A: Make.com charges based on operations (credits) — each module execution in a scenario consumes one credit. Plans include a monthly credit allowance; additional credits can be purchased if you exceed your limit.
Q: Is Make cheaper than Zapier?
A: For most use cases, yes — significantly. At equivalent operation volumes, Make.com typically costs 3–5× less than Zapier. The trade-off is a steeper learning curve and a more complex credit model.
Q: What happens when I run out of operations?
A: Your scenarios stop executing until you either purchase additional credits or your monthly allowance resets. Make.com does not automatically charge overages — you have to manually buy extra credits or upgrade your plan.
Q: Can I cancel Make.com anytime?
A: Yes. Monthly plans cancel at the end of the current billing period. Annual plans are non-refundable after the initial period, so confirm your usage patterns before committing to annual billing.
Q: Does Make.com offer a free trial of paid plans?
A: Make.com periodically offers trials of paid features, but the standard entry point is the Free plan. The Core plan's low price point ($9/month annual) makes it low-risk to test without a formal trial.
Final Thoughts
Make.com's pricing is genuinely competitive — once you understand the credit model. The confusion isn't in the cost, it's in the mental model. Once you internalize that every module execution costs a credit, budgeting becomes predictable and the platform's value becomes clear.
For solo users and small teams building real automation workflows, Core at $9/month delivers exceptional value. For power users who need advanced features, Pro at $16/month is a straightforward upgrade. The Teams plan earns its price only when collaboration is the genuine constraint — not volume.
If your workflows are increasingly AI-driven rather than pure data routing, it's worth evaluating whether a credit-based model built for integration workflows is the right architecture for what you're building — or whether an AI-native platform would serve you better.
Explore EasyClaw — AI-Native Automation →