Compare

Tray.ai vs. Make

Enterprise governance and scale vs. operation-count limits

Great — a couple more details

This helps us connect you with the right person. Optional, and you can skip it.
All comparisons

Why enterprises choose Tray

CiscoAirbnbFedExNotionNetAppApollo.ioYextLife360

Side by side

Capability Tray.ai Make
Platform architecture
Enterprise-ready multi-tenancy and RBAC Limited — team-level controls only
Unified integration + automation + AI agents Automation only — no native agent builder or MCP layer
Implementation + time-to-value
Visual builder accessible to technical and business teams
Production reliability at enterprise throughput 1T+ processes/year Timeout and execution limits become blockers at scale
AI + agents
Native AI agent builder —
Governed MCP layer (Agent Gateway for MCP) —
MCP in your AI IDE with native Claude Code plugin (Tray Headless) Build workflows in natural language from Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf —
MCP tool governance and audit —
Governance + compliance
SOC 2 Type 2, HIPAA, GDPR SOC 2 Type 2 — no HIPAA BAA
Full audit trail per workflow run Limited audit logging
Enterprise SSO + SCIM Available on highest tiers only
Connector library
700+ connectors 2,000+ app library — mostly community-maintained
Universal HTTP client for the long tail
Pricing model
Predictable enterprise pricing One contract — platform-based Operation-count metering that compounds unpredictably as workflows scale

What you get instead

workflow execution uptime, trailing 90 days on status.tray.ai
100%
processes run per year on the platform
1T+
Type 2 audited, with annual penetration testing
SOC 1 & 2
managed connectors across integration, automation and agents
700+

The real difference

Make is a capable tool for technical individuals and small teams automating lightweight processes. Its visual scenario builder is accessible, the app library is broad, and for straightforward trigger-action workflows it works well.

The ceiling appears at enterprise scale. Make’s operation-count pricing compounds unpredictably as workflow volume grows. Multi-step scenarios with branching logic, error handling, and high throughput hit execution time limits. RBAC is team-level at best — no role-based access controls that meet enterprise InfoSec requirements. And there’s no AI agent layer: no Merlin Agent Builder, no Agent Gateway for MCP, no governed MCP.

The pattern teams follow: start on Make, outgrow it once workflows get complex or governance requirements appear, and move to a platform built for that environment. Tray.ai is where that path leads.

Where Make wins

Accessibility and price for lightweight use. Make’s free tier and per-operation pricing are genuinely competitive for low-volume automations. The scenario builder has a shallow learning curve. For a 10-person team connecting two SaaS tools, Make is a reasonable starting point.

Make’s app library is broad — 2,000+ integrations, many community-maintained. If the specific app you need is in the library and your workflow is simple, Make ships it fast.

Where Tray.ai wins

  • Scale without surprises. 1T+ processes executed per year across the Tray.ai platform. Operation-count metering doesn’t apply — one contract covers the platform. Make’s execution time limits (40 minutes max per scenario) and operation caps become hard blockers for high-throughput workflows.
  • AI agents on the same platform. Merlin Agent Builder and Agent Gateway for MCP are core pillars, not add-ons. Make has no equivalent — any serious AI work means a separate vendor. Tray Headless brings natural-language workflow building via Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf — Make has no comparable IDE integration.
  • Enterprise governance that holds up. SOC 1 & SOC 2 Type 2, HIPAA, GDPR. Full audit trails per workflow run. RBAC that InfoSec can sign off on. Make’s compliance posture doesn’t satisfy regulated industries — no HIPAA BAA, team-level permissions only.
  • Complex orchestration. Branching logic, error handling, retry policies, multi-step transformations across 5+ systems — Tray.ai is built for this. Make scenarios hit execution time limits and complexity ceilings fast.
  • One platform under one contract. Cue moved from months-long integration builds to days. HackerOne quadrupled delivery speed. Bynder went from 2-3 partner integrations per quarter to 7-8. Real customer velocity, not operation counts.

Pricing reality

Make’s pricing is operation-based. At small volume, the numbers look attractive. At enterprise volume — high-frequency triggers, multi-step scenarios running thousands of times a day — the bill grows in ways the initial estimate doesn’t predict. Ask for a projection at 10× your current estimated volume before signing.

Tray.ai is enterprise / quote-based. One contract. Renewals don’t scale with every workflow trigger.

The bottom line

Choose Tray.ai if

You're running multi-system enterprise workflows, need AI agents on the same platform as your integrations, operate in a regulated industry, or have outgrown the ceiling that operation-count pricing imposes.

Choose Make if

Your team is small, your automations are lightweight, you don't need HIPAA compliance or enterprise RBAC, and operation-count pricing stays manageable at your expected volume.

Pricing reality

Tray.ai

Enterprise / quote-based — one contract, platform-scope pricing

Pricing scales with platform scope, not with every trigger

Make

Operation-count metering — costs compound as automation expands; scenario pricing shifts at scale

Teams consistently report bill surprises when high-volume workflows go live

“Tray is the rocket fuel that lets us deliver integrations in days, not months, freeing up our resources to focus on building a best-in-class product.”
Jordan Spivack, Cue

Industry recognized

3× Visionary

Gartner Magic Quadrant for iPaaS, 2024, 2025 and 2026

7× Leader

Nucleus Research iPaaS Value Matrix, seven consecutive years

Pioneer

Gartner Emerging Market Quadrant for No-Code Agent Builders, 2026

14 Hype Cycles

Gartner inclusions in 2026, including Agentic AI and Agentic Automation

Frequently asked questions

Is Make suitable for enterprise workflows?

+

Make works well for small technical teams and lightweight automations, but it hits real ceilings at enterprise scale. Operation-count pricing compounds unpredictably with high-volume workflows, execution time limits cap complex scenarios at 40 minutes, and RBAC controls are team-level only — insufficient for enterprise InfoSec requirements. Organizations needing HIPAA compliance, full audit trails, or AI agents typically move to a platform designed for those requirements.

Does Make support AI agents?

+

Make does not have a native AI agent builder or a governed MCP layer. Any serious AI agent work requires bringing in a separate vendor. Tray.ai includes Merlin Agent Builder and Agent Gateway for MCP as core platform capabilities, not add-ons.

How does Tray.ai pricing compare to Make?

+

Make uses operation-count metering — every trigger and action in every scenario counts toward your monthly cap. This pricing model grows unpredictably as automation volume expands. Tray.ai is enterprise / quote-based with platform-scope pricing: one contract covers the platform regardless of workflow trigger volume.

Thinking about switching from Make?

Get a demo of what life looks like on Tray.

Great — a couple more details

This helps us connect you with the right person. Optional, and you can skip it.

Gartner, Magic Quadrant for Integration Platform as a Service, Andrew Humphreys, Keith Guttridge, Allan Wilkins, Shrey Pasricha, 16 March 2026. Gartner, Emerging Market Quadrant for No-Code Agent Builders — Established Vendors, Jason Wong, Keith Guttridge, Eric Goodness, Kelli Smith, Justin Tung, 8 June 2026. Gartner, Hype Cycle for Agentic AI, Rajesh Kandaswamy, Leinar Ramos, Gary Olliffe, Tom Coshow, Pieter den Hamer, Erick Brethenoux, 2 April 2026. Nucleus Research, iPaaS Technology Value Matrix.

GARTNER is a registered trademark and service mark, HYPE CYCLE and MAGIC QUADRANT are registered trademarks of Gartner, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the U.S. and internationally and are used herein with permission. All rights reserved. Gartner does not endorse any vendor, product or service depicted in its research publications and does not advise technology users to select only those vendors with the highest ratings or other designation. Gartner research publications consist of the opinions of Gartner’s Research & Advisory organization and should not be construed as statements of fact. Gartner disclaims all warranties, expressed or implied, with respect to this research, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.