Sistava vs Make
Workflow Automation
Sistava vs Make
Make (formerly Integromat) offers a visual drag-and-drop builder for creating complex multi-branch automation scenarios with 3,000+ integrations. While Make provides visual flexibility, workflows still require manual mapping of every path and condition. Sistava replaces the need to build scenarios entirely with autonomous employees that figure out the steps themselves.
Profile
- Pricing
- Free (1K credits), then $10.59/mo (Core), $18.82/mo (Pro), $34.12/mo (Teams). Enterprise custom.
- Founded
- 2012, Prague, Czech Republic (as Integromat, rebranded 2022)
- Funding
- Acquired by Celonis (~$100M+). Celonis raised $2.4B total.
- Focus
- Visual scenario builder for complex multi-step automations across 3,000+ apps
Why Sistava
- Sistava employees determine their own workflow. Make requires you to manually design every scenario branch and path.
- Sistava ships pre-built AI teams from a marketplace, ready in minutes. Make requires hours building and debugging visual scenarios.
- Sistava has persistent 7-Layer memory across tasks. Make uses credit-based stateless executions.
- Sistava includes task boards, sprint cycles, and file Drive for project management. Make is pure data-routing with no work context.
- Sistava runs on Temporal with full execution inspection. Make operations fail silently when credits run out.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Make | Sistava |
|---|---|---|
| Visual scenario builder | Autonomous AI employees | |
| Explicit branching required | Handles ambiguity | |
| 3,000+ | Thousands of native + MCP | |
| AI modules as add-on (beta) | Native AI-first | |
| Shared scenarios | ✓ | |
| Stateless | Persistent (graph + episodic) | |
| ✗ | ✓ | |
| HTTP/webhook only | ✓ | |
| Key-value data stores | ✓ | |
| Scenario retry | ✓ | |
| Basic error routing | ✓ | |
| ✗ | ✓ | |
| $10.59/mo (credit-based) | $49/mo, no lock-in |