Visual workflow automation
Hands-onMake
formerly Integromat
Connects the tools you already pay for into automated scenarios you draw rather than code, metered in credits and priced from USD 9 a month.
The short answer
- Best for
- A recruiting ops person joining an ATS, a CRM and a spreadsheet that have no native link
- Not ideal for
- Anyone expecting recruitment logic in the box: it ships connectors, not a hiring process
- Price
- Free (1,000 credits a month), then from USD 9 a month for 10,000 credits
- Closest alternative
- n8nWhen you want the same visual automation with the option to host it yourself and keep candidate data in house
At a glance
- Recruitment fitWeak
- Ease of useStrong
- ImplementationFair
- Price transparencyStrong
- Value for moneyStrong
- ScalabilityStrong
Why these assessments
- Recruitment fitWeak
- A general integration platform. Nothing in it knows what a candidate, a vacancy or a stage is until you build that meaning yourself.
- Ease of useStrong
- This is the automation platform Pieter builds on. The drag-and-drop builder is described from that use as genuinely accessible to a recruiter who does not want to write code.
- ImplementationFair
- The free tier is real and needs no card, but the work is not installing it: it is designing, testing and then owning every scenario you build.
- Price transparencyStrong
- Plan prices, credit bundles and the credit model itself are all published: a fixed 1 credit per operation outside the built-in AI apps, with the per-module rules written out module type by module type.
- Value for moneyStrong
- From our own use the free tier already gets real work done and it undercuts Zapier on flexibility for the money, and because the credit rules are published per module type you can price a scenario before you build it.
- ScalabilityStrong
- Active scenarios go from two to unlimited at the first paid tier, the minimum interval drops from fifteen minutes to one, and credit bundles step up without changing plan.
Our reading of the evidence on this page. No score, no formula.
Where it sits
- Discover
- Apply
- Screen
- ATS
- Interview
- Hire
The SourcrLab bottom line
A general automation platform used in recruitment as glue, and priced low enough that the cost is rarely the objection. The free tier gives 1,000 credits a month and two active scenarios on a fifteen-minute interval, which is enough to prove one idea. USD 9 removes the scenario limit and drops the interval to a minute, which is where it becomes usable. The credit that meters all of it is documented rather than mysterious: outside the built-in AI apps it is a flat 1 credit per operation, a trigger costs a credit even when it finds nothing, and an action costs one per bundle it processes. Budget by counting the modules your scenario runs, then add headroom only where you use Make's own AI provider, which consumes on token usage instead.
Best fit
The recruiting stack that grew one tool at a time and now needs the tools to talk. A scenario that copies a new ATS candidate into the CRM, posts to the hiring channel and updates a tracking sheet is an afternoon's work and USD 9 a month, against a custom integration nobody wants to maintain.
Think twice if
If you want recruitment logic rather than plumbing. Make ships connectors and control flow; the decision about what should happen when a candidate reaches an interview stage is yours to design, build, test and keep working when a vendor changes an API.
Hands-on experience
Pieter Henderyckx's take
Recruiter and founder of SourcrLab
Make (formerly Integromat) is my preferred platform for building automations. It's visual, intuitive, and powerful enough for most recruiting workflows without needing to write code. I use it to connect tools that don't natively talk to each other: syncing CRM data, triggering notifications, automating candidate pipeline updates, that kind of thing. The drag-and-drop interface makes it genuinely accessible. Compared to Zapier, I find Make more flexible and better value for money. Compared to n8n, it's more user-friendly but slightly less powerful. For me, Make hits the sweet spot. If you're a recruiter who wants to automate repetitive tasks but doesn't want to learn programming, this is where I'd start. The free tier is generous enough to get real work done.
Why choose Make?
The first paid tier removes the two real limits
Free caps you at two active scenarios and a fifteen-minute minimum interval, which rules out anything that needs to feel immediate. USD 9 makes scenarios unlimited and the interval one minute. That single step is the difference between a demo and a working integration.
Around 3,000 connectors, including the ones recruitment uses
The breadth is the point: when both ends of the problem already have a connector, the work is drawing the line between them rather than writing and hosting an integration. Where a connector does not exist, HTTP and webhooks cover the gap.
A free tier that is a real allowance
1,000 credits a month, two active scenarios, the full no-code builder with routers and filters, and customer support. Enough to build the one automation that is annoying you and see whether it holds up before any money changes hands.
Credits scale without changing plan
The plan price is quoted against a 10,000-credit bundle, with 20,000, 40,000 and 80,000 available on the same tier. Growth is a bigger bundle rather than a migration, and annual billing is advertised at 15 percent or more off.
You can price a scenario before you build it
The credit rules are published per module type, so the cost of an automation is arithmetic rather than a surprise: count the triggers, searches, actions and bundles it will process. Third-party app modules, including AI ones connected with your own key, stay at the flat 1 credit per operation.
The tiers above Core are about operating it, not doing more
Pro at USD 16 adds priority execution, custom variables and full-text search of the execution log. Teams at USD 29 adds roles and shared scenario templates. If one person builds and nobody else needs to look, Core is the honest answer.
Main trade-offs
Cheap per credit is not the same as cheap per scenario
The rate is flat, but the count is yours to control. A trigger polling every minute spends a credit on every empty check, and an action module spends one per bundle, so a search returning ten rows followed by an update costs eleven rather than two. Sloppy scenario design, not the price list, is what empties a bundle.
The built-in AI apps are the part you still have to model
On Make's own AI provider, the AI Toolkit, AI Agents and AI Web Search consume 1 credit per operation plus credits on token usage, which is not predictable by counting modules. Connecting your own provider key instead brings them back to a fixed 1 credit per operation, and that is available on the paid plans.
You own every scenario you build
The platform is cheap; the maintenance is not free. Connectors change, APIs deprecate, and a scenario that silently stops is worse than one that never existed, because the process around it assumes it is running. Somebody has to own that, and in most recruitment teams nobody is assigned to.
Candidate data flows through a third platform
Every scenario that moves an applicant between systems makes Make a processor of personal data in your chain. That needs to appear in your processing register and your agreements, and where the execution runs is a question worth asking before the first live scenario, not after.
No free trial above the free tier
The pricing page does not offer a trial of the paid plans. The free tier is the trial, and its fifteen-minute interval means you cannot test the responsiveness you are actually buying.
Pricing and buying reality
Free (1,000 credits a month), then from USD 9 a month for 10,000 credits
- Free: USD 0, 1,000 credits a month, 2 active scenarios, 15-minute minimum interval, no-code builder, around 3,000 apps, routers and filters, customer support
- Core: USD 9 a month for 10,000 credits, unlimited active scenarios, 1-minute minimum interval, scheduled scenarios, 5 GB data transfer, Make API access
- Pro: USD 16 a month for 10,000 credits, everything in Core plus priority execution, custom variables and full-text search of the execution log
- Teams: USD 29 a month for 10,000 credits, everything in Pro plus team roles and shared scenario templates
- Enterprise: custom pricing, with custom functions, enterprise app integrations, 24/7 support, overage protection and advanced security
- Credit bundles of 20,000, 40,000 and 80,000 are available on the paid tiers; annual billing is advertised at 15 percent or more off
- No free trial is offered on the paid plans; the free tier serves that purpose
- Credits replaced operations as the billing unit in August 2025. Operations count what a scenario does; credits are what you pay for it. Outside the built-in AI apps the rate is a fixed 1 credit per operation
- Per module type: a trigger costs 1 credit per run even when it finds no data, a search costs 1 per run however many rows it returns, an action costs 1 per input bundle processed, an aggregator 1 per aggregation, an iterator 1 to split plus 1 per iterated bundle downstream
- Built-in AI apps consume dynamically on Make's own AI provider: 1 credit per operation plus credits on token usage for the AI Toolkit, AI Agents and AI Web Search. With your own provider connection, available on paid plans, they fall back to a fixed 1 credit per operation
- Exceptions: the Make Code app costs 2 credits per second of execution. Error handlers, routers and filters, subscenario and scenario modules and Make Functions cost nothing
- Prices in USD
What we do not know
- What a token-metered AI scenario costs in practice, since that half is dynamic
- The exact annual prices behind the advertised 15 percent
- Where scenario execution and stored data are located
- What happens when a credit bundle runs out mid-month
Checked on the vendor's pricing page, August 2026. Make pricing page, USD prices and credit bundles
How it fits your stack
Works with
- Around 3,000 applications, plus HTTP and webhooks for whatever is missing
- Your ATS and CRM, as both source and destination
- Slack or Teams, for the notification end of a scenario
Likely replaces
- Copying candidate records between systems by hand
- A custom integration script nobody wants to maintain
May overlap with
- n8n and Zapier, which do the same job with a different hosting and pricing model
- Native integrations your ATS already ships, which need no maintenance from you
Check before buying
- Whether your ATS already has the native integration you were going to build
- How many credits your intended scenario would actually consume
- Who owns the scenarios when the person who built them leaves
- How candidate data flowing through it lands in your processing register
Make vs alternatives
Products a buyer would genuinely put next to this one, with the reason you would pick each instead.
Choose n8n when you want the same visual automation with the option to self-host, so candidate data never leaves infrastructure you control. From our own use it is the more powerful of the two and the more technical.
Choose Zapier when the people building the automations are recruiters rather than ops, and a simpler trigger-action model matters more than branching logic.
Make head to head
Pairs SourcrLab has looked at as a single buying decision, with the trade-offs written out.
Used Make?
Tell other recruiters what worked, what did not, and who it suits. Positive, mixed or critical — all useful.
Evidence
- Plan prices and what each tier adds — checked against a primary source: Make pricing page, USD prices and credit bundles
- Free tier: 1,000 credits, 2 scenarios, 15-minute interval — checked against a primary source: Make pricing page, USD prices and credit bundles
- Core removes the scenario limit and drops the interval to one minute — checked against a primary source: Make pricing page, USD prices and credit bundles
- Credit bundles of 10,000 to 80,000 on the paid tiers — checked against a primary source: Make pricing page, USD prices and credit bundles
- Around 3,000 app connectors — vendor claim, not independently verified: Make pricing page, USD prices and credit bundles
- Annual billing advertised at 15 percent or more off — vendor claim, not independently verified: Make pricing page, USD prices and credit bundles
- Credits replaced operations as the billing unit in August 2025 — checked against a primary source: Make Help Center, how features use credits, updated 13 August 2026
- Fixed 1 credit per operation outside the built-in AI apps — checked against a primary source: Make Help Center, how features use credits, updated 13 August 2026
- Per-module credit rules for triggers, searches, actions, aggregators and iterators — checked against a primary source: Make Help Center, how features use credits, updated 13 August 2026
- Built-in AI apps consume dynamically on Make's AI provider, fixed on your own connection — checked against a primary source: Make Help Center, how features use credits, updated 13 August 2026
- Make Code costs 2 credits per second; error handlers, routers and filters are free — checked against a primary source: Make Help Center, how features use credits, updated 13 August 2026
- Building and running recruiting automations in it — first-hand use: Pieter builds SourcrLab's recruiting automations on Make
- The free tier is enough to do real work — first-hand use: Pieter builds SourcrLab's recruiting automations on Make
- Exact annual prices — not enough evidence
- Execution and data location — not enough evidence
Last reviewed: August 2026. How SourcrLab verifies information
Work at Make (Integromat)?
Email us to verify this profile or suggest a factual update.