Make (Integromat)
by Celonis (Make)
Getting-started guide
Visual automation that connects your apps — and a meter that counts differently from its best-known rival.
Last reviewed 2026-07-27 · for Make (Integromat)
You build on a visual canvas, dragging modules onto it and drawing the path between them. A scenario starts with a trigger — a new form response, an incoming email — and then runs each module in turn. You run it once by hand, open the execution to see what each step received and sent, and adjust.
A no-code automation platform connecting thousands of apps through a visual builder.
Best suited to workflows with real logic — branches, filters, loops — rather than simple two-app connections.
Priced by credits consumed rather than by workflow count, with a free tier sufficient for learning.
A direct alternative to other automation platforms, with a materially different billing model that changes which one is cheaper for your specific work.
The free plan gives a small monthly credit allowance, caps how many scenarios can be active, and enforces a long minimum gap between runs. Enough to learn on; not enough to depend on.
Paid plans start low and give a much larger credit allowance, which also removes the scenario cap and shortens the minimum gap between runs.
Every module execution costs one credit, not every workflow run. A ten-step scenario running a hundred times spends a thousand credits.
Since 2025-08-27 the meter has been called credits rather than operations, and AI features and code execution consume more per use than ordinary modules.
Sketch your workflow on paper first. Counting the modules before you build tells you the monthly cost before you commit.
Automation platforms carry a different risk from assistants: you are handing over standing access to your accounts, not a single conversation. Connecting a scenario to your email, files, or customer records grants a persistent permission that keeps working while you are asleep, and keeps working after you have forgotten the scenario exists.
Data passing through a scenario is processed on the platform's servers, so a workflow moving personal or customer information puts that data in a third party's hands. That is often perfectly acceptable — it is the same trade as any cloud tool — but it should be a decision you made rather than one you discovered.
Estimates monthly credit use as records times modules times runs.
Why this one: This one calculation prevents the most common and most expensive misunderstanding on the platform.
Tweak: If the number surprises you, look for modules to remove rather than a bigger plan to buy.
Builds a two-module scenario: a form-response trigger and a spreadsheet module that adds a row for each submission.
Why this one: Few modules, obvious success criterion, and it exercises the trigger-and-action pattern everything else builds on.
Tweak: Add a filter so only some submissions pass through. Filters are where Make starts to be worth its complexity.
Gathers from a source on a schedule and sends one summary rather than many alerts.
Why this one: Teaches scheduling and aggregation together, and produces something you will actually keep using.
Tweak: Lengthen the interval before shortening it — frequent runs are the fastest way to burn credits.
Runs the scenario once by hand rather than on its schedule, then clicks through each module in the execution view.
Why this one: The execution view shows exactly what data each module received and emitted. It is the debugging skill the platform rewards most.
Tweak: Do this while it works, not only when it breaks. Knowing what correct looks like makes broken obvious.
Want the full picture first? See the Make (Integromat) overview for pricing, the free tier and related tools.
