Companies looking to free their teams from manual tasks today most often come across two paths: reaching for a no-code tool such as Make or Zapier, or having a custom-built solution developed for them. The choice between workflow automation tools and custom development determines not only how quickly a process can get up and running, but also how well it can be maintained and scaled in the long run. This article compares both paths and offers criteria for making a sensible decision – not one based on whatever was just recommended on LinkedIn.
What is workflow automation and why are companies increasingly considering it
Workflow automation means connecting several applications and process steps so that data and tasks move between systems without manual intervention – for example, from a form into a CRM, from the CRM into an invoicing system, and from there into a confirmation email. The goal isn't to automate everything at once, but to eliminate the repetitive manual steps that burden the team and create room for errors. If you're not sure where automation makes the most sense in your processes, it's worth first reading about where to start with business process automation and what to prioritise – choosing the right process is often more important than choosing the tool.
Make and Zapier: no-code automation tools in brief
Make (formerly Integromat) and Zapier are among the best-known no-code automation tools. Both work on a "trigger – action" principle: when something happens in one application (a new order, a completed form, a new email), a chain of steps is triggered in other applications.
How they work
In a visual interface, the user assembles a scenario (Make) or a Zap (Zapier) from predefined connectors to hundreds of common applications – Gmail, Google Sheets, Slack, HubSpot, Shopify, and so on. There's no need to write code; it's enough to set conditions, field mapping, and the order of steps.
Strengths of the no-code approach
- Fast start without needing a development team.
- A wide library of ready-made connectors for popular SaaS tools.
- Suitable for simple, linear processes with a lower data volume.
- Easy to adjust the scenario even for non-technical staff.
Where no-code tools hit their limits
As a company grows or a process becomes more complex, limitations start to appear:
- Limits on the number of operations, trigger frequency, or the volume of data transferred within pricing plans.
- More demanding handling of exceptions, complex branching logic, or transactional processing of multiple steps at once.
- Dependence on the availability and stability of a third-party connector – a change to the vendor's API can break the scenario.
- Less control over data security, logging, and auditability for more sensitive processes.
- With dozens of interconnected scenarios, maintenance becomes hard to follow, because the logic is spread across a visual interface rather than living in a clear codebase.
If a process involves connecting several internal systems via their own APIs, it's also worth looking at how to automate data exchange between company systems via API – some integrations simply aren't covered by a no-code tool.
Custom-built solutions: when they make sense
A custom-built solution means the automation logic is written by a development team specifically for the company's needs – either as a standalone service or as part of an existing internal system. It makes sense above all when:
- the process handles a large volume of data or runs at high frequency,
- complex conditional logic, exception handling, or connections between systems without a ready-made connector are needed,
- the company needs full control over where and how data is processed (for example, for security or GDPR reasons),
- the automation is part of a broader internal system that will keep evolving.
A more detailed comparison of this choice in a wider context is offered in the article on what pays off more for a company – custom software or an off-the-shelf SaaS solution. If you're considering this route, the team behind custom software development can assess whether a custom solution is worthwhile for a given process, or whether a combination with a no-code tool is more appropriate.
Make vs Zapier – what sets them apart
Although both tools are often mentioned in the same breath, they aren't identical.
| Criterion | Make | Zapier |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario visualisation | Graphical diagram with branching | Linear list of steps |
| Complex logic | Better support for branching and iterations directly in the scenario | More complex processes need more Zaps or additional steps |
| Learning curve | Slightly steeper due to visual complexity | Simpler setup for basic scenarios |
| Connector ecosystem | Large and growing | One of the largest on the market |
| Best suited for | More complex, branching processes | Fast, straightforward connections |
The choice between them tends to be a question of the specific use case and the team that will manage the scenarios – not a universal answer.
How to choose workflow automation tools: decision criteria
When deciding between a no-code tool and custom development, it helps to weigh up several factors:
- Complexity of the logic – a simple "if X happens, do Y" can be handled by a no-code tool; complex branching and exceptions call for code.
- Data volume and frequency – a growing volume of transactions increases the likelihood of hitting plan or performance limits.
- Data sensitivity – personal data, payment information, or internal company data require greater control over where and how they are processed.
- Lifespan of the process – a short-term or experimental process is worth testing first in a no-code tool; a long-term critical process is worth building to be more resilient.
- Internal capacity – without a development team, no-code is often the only realistic starting point.
As the number of connected systems increases, so does the complexity of maintaining a scenario in a no-code tool – the logic is scattered across multiple visual steps without a central code structure, so every change requires going through several places at once. In a custom-built solution, this logic can be concentrated in a clear codebase that can be versioned, tested, and adjusted systematically, which makes maintenance easier as the number of integrations grows.
A hybrid approach: no-code and custom development together
In practice, companies often don't choose between "either/or". It's common for simpler, less critical scenarios to run in Make or Zapier, while the core business logic – for example order processing, invoicing, or connecting to an internal system – is custom-built, with the no-code tool serving only as a light layer for peripheral integrations. This approach makes it possible to respond quickly to new requirements without critical processes becoming dependent on the limits of an external platform. A similar logic is described in the article on robotic process automation (RPA) and when it pays off – that too comes down to a choice between a ready-made tool and a solution tailored to a specific process.
The tool should serve the process, not the other way round – if the team is adapting to the platform's limitations instead of the platform supporting the real process, it's time to rethink the architecture.
Summary
Make and Zapier remain a sensible choice for simple, well-defined, and quickly deployable automations – especially where a company doesn't have its own development capacity. As soon as a process gains in complexity, data volume, or requires stricter control over security, a custom-built solution can be the more stable choice in the long run – not because it's inherently "better", but because it matches the needs of the specific process exactly. Which combination makes sense for your case depends on the specific processes, systems, and the team that will manage the solution – best assessed in a no-obligation consultation via the contact form.