Make vs UiPath: Automation or RPA?
This page may contain affiliate links. If you buy through them we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
Verdict: these two solve different problems more often than people expect going in. If every step in your process is reachable through an API or a webhook, Make's cloud canvas gets you there for a published, operations-based bill starting around $9 a month. If a real step in the process means clicking through a legacy desktop application that exposes no API, an old ERP screen, a terminal emulator, UiPath's attended and unattended robots are built specifically for that, and Make has no equivalent at all. We looked at where each one actually wins rather than treating this as a straight substitute comparison, since for a lot of use cases it isn't one.
What Make and UiPath actually are
Make (rebranded from Integromat) is a cloud-only visual automation platform built around a canvas where you drag "modules" and connect them with routes that can branch, loop, and handle errors visually. It assumes the systems you're automating expose some kind of programmatic interface, an API, a webhook, a native integration, and it bills by individual "operations," meaning every action a scenario runs.
UiPath is a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) platform built around a different assumption: that many of the systems you need to automate don't expose an API at all, and the only way in is to drive the actual user interface the way a human would, clicking buttons, reading screen text, typing into fields. Its Studio product builds that automation visually or by recording your own actions, and Orchestrator manages fleets of attended robots (running alongside a human) and unattended robots (running on their own schedule) at scale.
Comparison table
| Make | UiPath | |
|---|---|---|
| Core design | API and webhook-based cloud automation | UI-driven RPA for desktop and legacy applications |
| Self-hostable | No, cloud-only | Limited; Community edition has usage caps, enterprise is typically managed |
| Pricing model | Per operation, starting around $9/month | Free Community tier (capped); per-robot/per-user licensing scales into enterprise budgets |
| Legacy/no-API application support | None | Core strength: attended and unattended desktop robots |
| AI tooling | Maia AI Agents, describe-it-and-build | AI Computer Vision, document understanding, narrower agent tooling |
| Learning curve | Gentle to moderate | Studio is accessible; Orchestrator and fleet management add real complexity |
| Best for | API-reachable automation on SaaS tools | Legacy desktop apps with no API, high-volume unattended RPA |
Where each one actually wins
Make wins decisively the moment your systems are modern and API-reachable: SaaS tools, databases, webhooks, and most of what a small or mid-sized business touches day to day. Its module library runs into the low thousands of native app integrations, so a less common app is more likely to already have a ready-made connector than a workaround you have to build yourself.
UiPath wins just as decisively the moment a process depends on an application that has no API at all. A twenty-year-old internal tool, a government portal with no integration options, a terminal emulator session, these are genuinely outside what Make can touch, since there's no programmatic surface to connect to. UiPath's robots read and interact with the screen itself, which is a different technical approach solving a different problem than API-based workflow automation, not a feature Make is simply missing.
Pricing reality check
Make's billing counts every individual action a scenario executes, with published plans starting around $9 a month and a usable free tier for light testing. That cost structure fits a small or mid-sized business budget well, though a workflow that loops through many rows per execution can climb a tier faster than the scenario count alone suggests. UiPath's pricing is split across several license types, Studio, Orchestrator, attended robots, unattended robots, each potentially licensed separately, and third-party estimates for unattended robot licensing commonly land in the thousands of dollars per robot per year once you're past its free Community tier's usage caps. That's a meaningfully different budget conversation: Make fits a solo builder's or small team's infrastructure spend, while UiPath's real cost structure is built around enterprise RPA budgets. Confirm current numbers on UiPath's own pricing page before assuming any specific figure.
AI tooling: agent-first canvas vs. RPA-plus-AI
Make's Maia assistant lets you describe an AI Agent in plain language and have it assembled directly inside the Scenario Builder canvas, a comparatively low-friction on-ramp to agent-style automation for a team that doesn't want to wire tool-calling logic by hand. UiPath has added real AI capability of its own, Computer Vision for automating applications where UI selectors are unreliable, and document-understanding features for extracting structured data from scanned forms and PDFs, but these are additions to an RPA-first platform rather than a general-purpose agent framework. If your actual goal is a reasoning agent that acts across modern systems, Make's Maia is the more natural starting point; if it's extracting data from scanned documents as part of a larger RPA process, UiPath's document understanding is purpose-built for exactly that.
When NOT to use Make
Skip Make if a required step in your process means driving a legacy desktop application with no API and no stable way to connect to it programmatically. No amount of Make's integration breadth substitutes for that; you're looking at a different category of tool, and UiPath or another RPA platform is the right fit.
When NOT to use UiPath
Skip UiPath if your automation is entirely API-reachable and you don't need fleets of desktop robots. You'll be paying for RPA infrastructure, licensing, and complexity built for a problem (driving UI with no API) that your actual workflows don't have, when a platform like Make would get you the same result for a fraction of the cost and setup time.
Which should you pick?
Choose UiPath if your automation genuinely depends on driving legacy, no-API desktop applications at volume, and you have the enterprise budget its licensing assumes. Choose Make if your systems are API-reachable, which covers most modern SaaS-era automation and any Maia-built agent workflow on top of it; our Make vs n8n comparison is worth reading next if a free, self-hosted alternative to Make's operations billing is also on the table for you. Our Make vs Pabbly Connect comparison covers a lighter-weight, flat-fee cloud alternative if UiPath's enterprise RPA scope is overkill for what you actually need.
Learn more directly from the source: Make publishes current pricing and a large template library, and UiPath covers Studio, Orchestrator, and its current licensing tiers in its own documentation, both worth reading before you commit infrastructure or budget to either one.
Frequently asked questions
Is Make a replacement for UiPath?
Only for the parts of a process that do not require driving a desktop interface. Make connects to apps and services through APIs and webhooks, which covers most modern SaaS tools. If a step requires clicking through a legacy application with no API, an old accounting system, a government portal, Make has no way to do that, and UiPath's desktop robots are built specifically for it. Check whether every step in your process is API-reachable before assuming Make alone covers the job.
Is UiPath free to use?
UiPath offers a Community edition free for individuals and small teams under revenue and user-count limits, covering Studio and a capped amount of Orchestrator usage. Beyond that, pricing moves into per-robot and per-user licensing that scales quickly; unattended robots in particular are priced for enterprise budgets, with third-party estimates commonly running into the thousands of dollars per robot per year. Confirm current tiers directly on UiPath's pricing page, since published figures vary.
Which is easier for a non-technical team to learn?
Make, for most users. Its visual scenario builder and router modules are guided and rarely require writing an expression for a working flow. UiPath's Studio is also designed for a process-automation audience that may not code, with a recorder that captures UI actions directly, but its broader platform, Orchestrator, robot fleets, queues, adds real complexity that takes longer to learn than Make's canvas.
Can I use Make and UiPath together?
Yes. A common pattern has Make trigger a UiPath unattended robot through its API when a step needs desktop-level RPA, while Make handles everything else, API calls, data transformation, notifications, that does not need a robot driving a UI. That split lets each tool do the part it is actually built for instead of forcing one platform to cover both.