Runflow and Make: the visual scenario and the process that decides on its own.
Visual automation billed by action credit. Where the scenario is enough and where the cost starts tracking the number of steps.
In one paragraph.
Make is good at what it promises: drawing a scenario visually that links systems, without programming. Two points change the conversation. The first is the nature of the process: a scenario executes steps, an agent makes decisions. The second is the bill: every module action consumes a credit, so the cost tracks the number of steps in the scenario, not the result it produces.
Make and Runflow.
The comparison is about the delivery model, not about a feature list. Features change month to month; who builds it, who sustains it and how it is billed is what decides the project.
| Make | Runflow | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | A visual automation platform and no-code flow builder, in Make's own description. | An AI agent orchestration platform, plus the Forward Deployed engineers who deploy it with your team. |
| Who builds what goes to production | Your team, assembling the scenario module by module. | Our engineers, inside your operation, building alongside your team. |
| What happens after go-live | Your team maintains and tunes it. | We stay in the tuning cycle after go-live, and your team takes over whenever it wants to. |
| Integration with the systems that run the business | A catalog of apps and an HTTP module for whatever is missing. | More than 150 connectors for ERP, CRM, APIs and channels. Whatever has no connector becomes an MCP server. |
| Governance for regulated sectors | Scenario execution history and organization controls. | A per-decision trail with replay, human approval at the risk points and cost by team, ready to use. |
| How it is billed | By credit. Each module action in the scenario consumes a credit, according to Make's documentation. | By scope, defined in the free assessment. No hidden setup fee. |
| Where the data runs | A cloud service. | Your cloud, with your own keys, or operated by Runflow. Per-client isolation and compliance with the LGPD, Brazil's data protection law. |
We are not always the answer.
When Make is the right choice
- The operations team needs to see the flow drawn out, and does not want to depend on someone who programs.
- The process is deterministic, with few steps and controlled volume.
- The cost has to be low and the case is not critical.
- The integration is between cloud apps that are already in the catalog.
When Runflow is the right choice
- The scenario has grown to the point where the credit cost tracks every step, and what matters is the result.
- The case requires interpretation: understanding, querying the systems and deciding the next step.
- The process is regulated and needs an audit trail and human approval.
- There is no internal team to spare to build and sustain whatever goes to production.
In practice the two coexist, and that is how we recommend it. The deterministic path stays in the tool you already use, and the agent takes on what requires interpretation. Runflow integrates with whatever is already running.
What changed in a real operation.
Osten Group
+30%
in contact-to-visit conversion, with the first-contact team going from 7 people to 2.
PX Ativos Judiciais
4% to 10%
conversion on first contact, roughly R$ 1.5 million converted over the year without growing the team.
Vero
R$ 2 million
saved on overtime.
You are evaluating more than one.
Information about Make according to the public material at make.com, accessed on August 24, 2026.
Bring a real process and see what changes.
In a no-cost conversation with an expert, we look at the process you have today and tell you plainly whether the case calls for an agent or whether the tool you already use solves it.