In Make, you design visual scenarios that connect one app to another. An agent arrives with the routine ready, handles the exceptions and has someone accountable for keeping it running.
Side by side
| Criteria | Make | Agent in your operations |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A visual platform for building automation scenarios between apps, with AI features. | An agent designed around your process, delivered up and running. |
| Who does the work | Someone on the team designs the scenario, tests it and fixes it. | The agent handles it end to end. Your team only steps in where people are needed. |
| Your systems | Lots of ready-made apps and API access, configured by whoever builds it. | Connected to your ERP, CRM, WhatsApp, email and spreadsheets. |
| Control | Rules defined in the scenario. Anything outside them needs manual handling. | You approve what matters. Everything is logged. |
| Who builds and maintains it | Whoever built the scenario. | We monitor and fine-tune it every month, with documentation. |
| Results | Good for visual, well-defined workflows. | Hours given back and money saved, measured every month. |
Based on public information about each tool, checked in October 2026 · names and trademarks belong to their owners
When Make is enough
When an agent makes more sense
You can use both: the scenarios that work stay in Make, and the agent can trigger them or be triggered by them.
FAQ
When it makes sense, yes. The tool is chosen based on the process, and what you keep is a working, documented agent.
No. We start from what already works and only rebuild what doesn’t.
No. We handle the technical side and train the people who’ll use it. On your side, all you need is someone who knows the process.
Other comparisons