Activepieces vs Make

When to pick Activepieces

• You want to control cost at volume — cloud billing counts active flows at $5 each with unlimited runs, so a flow firing 10,000 times costs the same as one firing once, unlike operation metering.
• You need to keep data in your own network — the MIT-licensed Community Edition self-hosts with no cap on flows or runs, for compliance or data-residency requirements.
• You want a permissive open-source core — Activepieces is genuinely MIT, not fair-code, so you can modify and redistribute it without vendor restrictions.

When to pick Make

• You need the broadest managed catalog — Make ships 3,000+ app integrations plus an HTTP module for any REST API, more than Activepieces’ 700+ pieces.
• Your workflows are complex — routers, iterators, aggregators, and first-class error handling make Make strong at branching, multi-path scenarios that simpler tools cannot express.
• You do not want to run infrastructure — Make is fully managed from $9/month, with no Postgres, Redis, or upgrade operations to own.

Bottom line

Activepieces and Make are both visual automation platforms, but they trade off on ownership versus breadth. Activepieces wins on cost control and data sovereignty: an MIT-licensed core you self-host free, and cloud billing per active flow with unlimited runs. Make wins on managed convenience: 3,000+ integrations, deep branching logic, and API access on the $9 Core plan, all without running servers. Choose Activepieces if per-task billing or hosting your own data drives the decision and you can absorb the operational load; choose Make for the largest integration catalog and advanced scenario logic in a fully managed product.