Make (formerly Integromat) vs Activepieces
A side-by-side look at Make (formerly Integromat) (the paid SaaS) and Activepieces (the open source alternative). Use this page to decide if the switch fits your team and workflow.
| Make (formerly Integromat) | Activepieces | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | Visual automation builder. | Open source Zapier alternative with MIT license. |
| License | Proprietary SaaS | MIT |
| Pricing | Free tier; Core from $9/month. | Free to self-host · optional paid hosted plan |
| Self-host option | No | Yes — difficulty 2/5 |
| Hosted cloud available | Yes (only option) | Yes |
| Desktop apps | Varies by product | Web only |
| Mobile apps | Official apps typically available | None official |
Best for
Cleaner MIT-licensed alternative with a modern UI.
Activepieces strengths
- Properly MIT-licensed and open.
- Visual flows with branching and loops.
- TypeScript-based custom pieces.
Activepieces weaknesses
- Smaller integration catalogue than Zapier or n8n.
- Newer project — breaking changes occur.
- Cloud pricing tiers still evolving.
What's the catch with Make (formerly Integromat)?
- Pricing based on operations, not tasks — confusing.
- Learning curve for complex scenarios.
- Not self-hostable.
Still unsure?
Check the full list of alternatives to Make (formerly Integromat): see Make (formerly Integromat) alternatives, or learn more about Activepieces on its project page.
Recommended reading
When self-hosting goes wrong: seven failure modes and how to avoid them
An honest retrospective on the ways self-hosted setups break — not in theory, but in practice — and the small habits that prevent most of them.
Will the open source project you depend on still exist in three years?
Bus factor, maintainer burnout, funding models, and the signals that separate OSS projects that survive from those that quietly decay.
From SaaS to self-hosted: a 30-day migration playbook
A week-by-week plan to move one service off SaaS and onto your own server without breaking your team's workflow.