Every category where a model named Make for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Workflow orchestration	Data platform	12%	5 of 79	26%	27	criticized challenger	▲+4Since September 2026: 10% → 14%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
AI IT support agents	IT operations and endpoint	2%	26 of 121	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Freshservice with Freddy AI at 11%
Robotic process automation	IT operations and endpoint	0%	12 of 68	17%	6	under 10 labels · led by Microsoft Power Automate at 51%
EDI platforms	Data platform	0%	76 of 93	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by TrueCommerce EDI at 32%
SOAR platforms	Security operations	0%	49 of 67	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Tines at 41%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.

Movement

Since September 2026, Make held within the floor in all five categories: no change cleared 11 points.

Best category · Orchestration · by segment

Small business▲+6Since September 2026: 17% → 23%, +6 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

23%from 17% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 5 pointsRank 2 → 1 of 81

Mid-market▲+4Since September 2026: 10% → 14%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

14%from 10% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 7 pointsRank 4 of 72, unchanged

Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.

0%from 0% in September 2026

Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 83 → 103 of 103

All categories · Mid-market

Category	September 2026	Now	Change	Reading	Rank
Orchestration	10%	14%	▲+4Since September 2026: 10% → 14%, +4 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.	Within noise	Rank 4 → 5 of 79
AI IT agents	0%	2%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 2% now.	New this edition	Rank 26 of 121, unchanged
RPA	0%	0%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.	New this edition	Rank 12 of 68, unchanged
EDI	0%	0%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.	New this edition	Rank 76 of 93, unchanged
SOAR	0%	0%	newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.	New this edition	Rank 49 of 67, unchanged

Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.

The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions

By model

How each model treated Make across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	2	1	2	0	5
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	4	0	2	7
Perplexity Sonar	1	1	0	1	3
Grok 4.20	1	0	0	1	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1	2	4
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	2	2	1	6
Kimi K2	1	0	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	1	1	0	3
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	1	0	0	1
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	2	0	0	2

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct26 labels14

Paraphrase8 labelsNone

Comparative15 labels4not counted in share

Budget-constrained23 labels5

Scale-constrained11 labels3

Negative35 labels5not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative118 labels in all, every segment counted; 22 of the 31 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Make is a budget-friendly visual automation platform with AI agents available on every plan, including the free one, and is best for small teams and solo operators automating on a budget.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · AI IT agents · budget prompt · first choice

“Make is usually the best overall choice if you want a low-cost, user-friendly automation platform with a generous free tier” Perplexity Sonar · Orchestration · budget prompt · first choice

“Make typically offers the best balance of features, pricing, and ease of use for mid-market B2B companies” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Orchestration · direct prompt · first choice

“Make.com is the most cost-effective and powerful engine for a mid-market B2B budget” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Orchestration · direct prompt · first choice

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“Avoid No-Code (Zapier/Make) for data infrastructure, ETL, and backend logic.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Orchestration · negative prompt · hard negative

“If your budget is bleeding from expensive tools like Zapier or Make” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Orchestration · budget prompt · hard negative

“Consumer/no-code automation tools like Zapier, Make, and IFTTT if you need true enterprise RPA” Perplexity Sonar · RPA · negative prompt · soft negative

“Good visual builder at a budget price ($9/mo) — but workflows get messy at scale.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Orchestration · direct prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Make, over the 118 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Make was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Zapier108 of 11810Compare →

n8n74 of 1188Compare →

Apache Airflow64 of 1182Compare →

Prefect55 of 11812Compare →

Microsoft Power Automate52 of 11819Not among the top eight

Dagster46 of 1183Compare →

Temporal37 of 1182Not among the top eight

Workato33 of 1183Compare →

UiPath28 of 1182Not among the top eight

Camunda20 of 1180Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Make. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 104 of the 118 answers that named Make and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ones.com36

wrike.com36

teamwork.com33

zapier.com31

g2.com29

larksuite.com25

kanerika.com24

kestra.io24

thedigitalprojectmanager.com21

software.reibuys.com20

279 of the 279 domain citations in answers naming Make came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

teamwork.com/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools33

wrike.com/workflow-guide/workflow-orchestration-tools31

larksuite.com/en_us/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools22

zapier.com/blog/workflow-orchestration-tools21

software.reibuys.com/workflow-orchestration-software-complete-buyers-guide-202420

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-workflow-orchestration-tools-features-pros-cons-comparison18

cognism.com/blog/data-orchestration-tools17

kanerika.com/blogs/workflow-orchestration-tools17

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

make.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Make takes 12% of first choices and Prefect takes 21%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “workflow orchestration tool”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “workflow orchestration tools”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 135,000 a month (“make”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 12,939,045 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 439,031 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 48,127 · 1,297 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 28,080
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

93+ ads · 44 text, 29 image, 20 video · 76 shown in the last 30 days

First shown March 2022, as Celonis, Inc., verified. Ads started 2025-10 to 2026-09: 80 in the year, 13 before. 27 more by other advertisers linking to it.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

12%

rank 5 of 79 in orchestration

Segment leader

21%

Prefect

First choices: 22 across its categories
Named in: 118 answers
Its own site cited: in 104 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on make.com

10,065

subdomains included

Content

943

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

0 · 8,876

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days
Blog	375	undated
Report or ebook	281	undated
Case study	110	undated
Glossary or explainer	75	undated
Webinar or virtual event	73	undated
Comparison	15	undated
Conference or event	6	undated
Template or tool	5	undated
News or press	2	undated
Podcast or video	1	undated

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page make.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.

Names read as Make

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Make; a claim can dispute any of them.

Make (formerly Integromat) 13Make.com 3Make (Integromat) 2Make.com (formerly Integromat) 1

Follow Make

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

The company

Make is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: The visual AI automation platform
make.com
For: businesses from startups to enterprises
make.com
Price stated: No credit card required make.com/en/integrations/trust
Free plan or trial: Get started free; No credit card required; No time limit on Free plan make.com
Integrations claimed: 3000 make.com
Certifications: GDPRSOC 3SOC 2 Type IIVerifiedOfficial Vendor
Customers named: PerkCelonisFranklinCoveyTeleclinicShop Accelerator MartechSmailyFINNMedia Production
Not stated on the pages read: Starting price, hosting

What Make's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: make.com, make.com/en/integrations/trust. A claimed page can correct any of them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Make's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Make, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Make by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Make is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name Make, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.