AGNT vs Make
Make has one of the best visual builders in the category — genuinely pleasant to work in, and strong at multi-step branching scenarios. It is also billed by operation and runs entirely in its cloud. That combination is the whole comparison.
Counting operations versus not counting at all
In an operations-priced model, every module execution inside a scenario consumes budget. A ten-step scenario running hourly consumes far more than a ten-step scenario running daily — so scenario design ends up shaped by billing rather than by the problem.
Cloud scenarios, per-operation billing
A polished builder with sophisticated routing, iterators, and aggregators, running on Make's infrastructure.
- Excellent visual scenario designer
- Strong branching, iteration, and aggregation
- Large catalog of cloud app connectors
- Zero infrastructure to operate
- Every module run consumes an operation
Local runtime, unmetered
A visual builder whose executions cost nothing at the platform level, because they run on your machine.
- No operation counter, no execution ceiling
- Local files, shell, and private networks in scope
- Agents with memory and autonomous goals
- Any model provider, including fully local
- You run and maintain the runtime
Structural comparison
| Property | AGNT | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Where the work runs | Your own machine | Make's cloud |
| Your data leaves your network | No — never by default | Yes, every operation |
| Pricing model | Flat. Free for unlimited local runs | Per operation, and a step is often several |
| Visual canvas | Yes — nodes and connections | Yes, and more expressive routing |
| Complex branching and iteration | Loops, parallel paths, sub-workflows | Best-in-class routers and iterators |
| Connector library | 120+ native, plus MCP and any REST API | 1,800+ |
| Reasoning between steps | An agent decides, per item | Rules, plus AI modules |
| Runs with no internet | Yes, with a local model | No |
| Reads and writes local files | Yes | No |
| Reaches private network resources | Yes, it is already inside | No |
| Cost at 100k operations/month | $0 on Community Core | Roughly $300–$700/mo |
| Choose the model per step | Yes, any provider or a local model | Fixed to their AI modules |
| Error handling and retries | Per node, with the receipt to debug from | Mature, with break/retry directives |
| Audit trail of what ran | A receipt per run, on your disk | Execution history in their console |
| Approval gates before an action | Built in, per step | Achievable, not first-class |
| Managed uptime and scaling | You run it, so you own it | Fully managed |
| Vendor lock-in | None. Workflows are JSON on your disk | Proprietary blueprint format |
| Works with local or private models | Yes — Ollama, LM Studio, anything | No |
| Source available | Yes | No |
| Scheduling granularity | Any interval, including sub-minute | Down to one minute on paid tiers |
Across 20 properties: AGNT leads on 13, Make leads on 5, and 2 are a genuine draw. The routing and iteration model on their canvas is genuinely better than most, and cheaper per operation than Zapier.
Reflects each product's published architecture as of August 2026. Structural properties are compared rather than plan prices, which vendors revise regularly — check current Make plans directly before purchasing.
Which one you should actually use
Stay with Make if…
You value the builder itself — and it is very good. Your scenarios connect cloud apps that Make already supports, your volume sits comfortably inside a plan, and nobody on the team wants to operate software. For visual multi-step orchestration between SaaS products, Make is a strong product and there is no reason to leave it.
Switch to AGNT if…
You have started designing scenarios around the operation counter rather than around the work — batching things that should run individually, polling less often than you should, skipping error handling because retries cost. Or your work needs local files and private systems Make cannot reach. Or you want an agent that reasons, not a scenario that branches.
Moving from Make to AGNT
Nobody writes these, and everybody searches for them. This is the honest version, including the step where the shape of the thing changes.
- Open the scenario and read it end to endMake scenarios export as a blueprint JSON, but the format is theirs — it documents the shape you are rebuilding rather than importing directly.
- Reconnect the apps in AGNTOne OAuth sign-in for most; credentials stay in a local vault.
- Map routers to branchesA Make router becomes a branch in AGNT. Iterators become a loop node. This part is close to one-for-one.
- Replace filter conditions with an agentWhere the scenario branches on a condition you had to express as a rule, an agent can read the item and decide — which is usually why the rule was complicated.
- Gate the consequential stepsAnything that sends or spends sits behind an approval for its first week.
- Run both, compare receipts, then switchThe AGNT version runs in report-only mode alongside the live scenario until the two agree.
What it costs at three real usage levels
| Monthly volume | AGNT | Make |
|---|---|---|
| A few hundred runs a month | $0 — Community Core | Usually inside a free or starter tier |
| Around 10,000 runs a month | $0 — Community Core | Typically $50–$300/mo depending on step count |
| 100,000+ runs a month | $0 — Community Core, plus your own model costs | Typically $500–$1,600/mo, plus AI usage |
AGNT runs on hardware you already own, so the marginal cost of a run is electricity plus whatever the model call costs you directly. Hosted tools meter the run itself. The comparison figures are list prices at the time of writing and are the part of this page most likely to age — check them before quoting them.