This summary of the video was created by an AI. It might contain some inaccuracies.
00:00:00 – 00:13:32
The YouTube video reviews and compares the features of Zapier and Make.com for business automation. It discusses pricing, user interfaces, building zaps, API usage, and application support. Make.com is highlighted for cost efficiency, UI flexibility, and support, while Zapier excels in straightforward automation building. The video showcases creating automations with API calls, advanced features like JS/Python coding, and data storage capabilities. Make.com shines in modern interfaces and flexibility, whereas Zapier is praised for extensive integrations and ease of use. Limitations are emphasized, such as Make.com's file size limit and using workarounds like Zapier for large files. Overall, leveraging both platforms for specific needs is recommended to address various automation requirements efficiently.
00:00:00
In this segment of the video, the speaker discusses pricing and user interface comparison between Zapier and Make.com for business automation. Both platforms offer a free plan, but Zapier’s premium plan is more expensive compared to Make.com, which provides more operations for a lower cost. The video emphasizes the cost efficiency of Make.com and the importance of considering file size capabilities when choosing a plan. Additionally, the user interface of Zapier is described as straightforward for building automations.
00:03:00
In this part of the video, the speaker explains a linear approach to building zaps in Zapier, where each step builds on the previous one with clear information display. They contrast Zapier with Make.com, noting that Make.com has a more visual and dynamic interface with branching capabilities. While branches are possible in Zapier as paths, they’re considered less intuitive. The video also highlights the importance of platform support for different applications like Google Sheets, Calendar, Gmail, and Slack. Both Zapier and Make.com are continuously adding integrations to support automation needs. In cases where a native integration is unavailable, users can connect directly to APIs for more complex integrations.
00:06:00
In this segment of the video, the speaker explains how to make API calls using zapier to connect with various platforms. They demonstrate using a powered AI system in Zapier to create automations and show an example of creating a new record in Airtable that triggers the creation of a folder on Google Drive, which updates the record back in Airtable. The speaker also mentions an advanced feature in Zapier that allows running JavaScript or Python code for custom automations, which offers flexibility when the built-in functionalities fall short. There is a comparison with make.com’s similar capabilities, such as using external platforms for certain features. Additionally, Zapier’s “Tables” feature, similar to Airtable, enables users to store data directly within Zapier, eliminating the need for external applications. The speaker praises Airtable’s robust database capabilities compared to Zapier’s offerings in this area.
00:09:00
In this segment of the video, the speaker discusses creating applications and automations with tools like Zapier and Airtable. They mention the ease of use and interface of Airtable over Zapier. They compare the support available in both platforms, noting Zapier’s mixed response times and Make.com’s satisfactory support. The speaker expresses a preference for Make.com due to its modern interface, flexibility in handling errors, and overall user-friendliness compared to Zapier’s older platform and legacy interfaces. They acknowledge using both platforms depending on specific app availability or advantages.
00:12:00
In this segment of the video, the speaker discusses the limitations of using make.com for file processing due to a 1,000-megabyte file size limit. They highlight using Zapier to upload larger files (up to 20 GBs) to Google Drive via a workaround. It is mentioned that Zapier’s upload file to Google Drive module is marked as a legacy module and may be replaced in the future. The speaker emphasizes the need to leverage multiple platforms to work around limitations and mentions having a workaround prepared for future changes. The importance of understanding platform limitations and the potential need for multiple solutions for file processing is emphasized.