How I Learned That 20-Step Zaps Are Less Powerful Than 5 Smart Ones (Real Client Experience)

When a B2B startup client came to me asking "How many steps can a Zap have?" I knew we were about to make the same mistake every business makes with automation: confusing complexity with effectiveness.

Their HubSpot was overflowing with deals, Slack was chaotic with project notifications, and they were manually creating Slack groups for every new project. The CEO was convinced they needed a massive, multi-step Zapier workflow to "automate everything at once."

Three platforms and multiple failed attempts later, I discovered something that changed how I approach automation forever: the number of steps in your Zap matters far less than understanding which platform can actually handle your workflow reliability.

Here's what you'll learn from my experience:

• Why 20-step Zaps often fail catastrophically (and when they work)

• The real platform comparison: Make.com vs N8N vs Zapier for complex workflows

• How to choose the right automation length for your specific use case

• The hidden costs of over-engineering your automation workflows

If you're building workflows that keep breaking, this playbook will save you months of frustration.

Most automation guides tell you the same thing: "Start simple, then scale your workflows." The conventional wisdom suggests you can build infinitely complex Zaps as long as you plan them properly.

Here's what every platform typically promises:

1. Unlimited complexity - Build workflows with dozens of steps

2. Reliable execution - Every step will run as planned

3. Easy troubleshooting - Clear error messages when things break

4. Scalable automation - Add more steps as your business grows

5. Cross-platform compatibility - Connect any app to any other app

This advice exists because automation platforms want you to believe their tools can handle enterprise-level complexity. The marketing materials show impressive workflow diagrams with 15+ steps seamlessly connecting multiple platforms.

But here's where conventional wisdom falls short: it completely ignores the reliability factor. A 20-step Zap might work perfectly in testing, but when one step fails in production, everything stops. The longer your workflow, the more failure points you create.

Most businesses end up spending more time fixing broken automations than they saved by implementing them. The real question isn't "how many steps can I add?" - it's "what's the minimum number of steps needed to solve my actual problem?"

When this B2B startup approached me, they had a specific pain point: every closed deal in HubSpot required someone to manually create a Slack workspace for the project team. Simple task, but multiplied by dozens of deals per month, it was eating hours of administrative time.

The CEO's vision was ambitious: "Let's automate everything in one mega-workflow." He wanted HubSpot deal closure to trigger Slack group creation, send welcome emails, create project folders, assign team members, and set up recurring check-ins. A 20+ step automation dream.

My first attempt: Make.com (the budget-friendly approach)

I started with Make.com because of the pricing. The workflow worked beautifully at first - HubSpot deal closes, Slack group gets created automatically. But here's what the tutorials don't tell you: when Make.com hits an error in execution, it stops everything. Not just that task, but the entire workflow.

The client would close three deals in a day. One would have a formatting issue in the company name. The entire automation would halt, and none of the three Slack groups would be created. The team would discover the failures hours later when they couldn't find the project channels.

The migration to N8N (developer's paradise turned bottleneck)

Next, I migrated everything to N8N. More setup required, definitely needed developer knowledge, but the control was incredible. You can build virtually anything. The problem? Every small tweak the client wanted required my intervention.

The interface, while powerful, isn't no-code friendly. When the client wanted to add a simple notification step, they couldn't figure out the interface. I became the bottleneck in their automation process. A solution meant to save time was now requiring constant developer maintenance.

After two platform failures, I realized the problem wasn't the number of steps - it was choosing the wrong platform for the team's actual needs. The final migration to Zapier taught me everything about building sustainable automation workflows.

Step 1: Platform Selection Based on Team Reality

Instead of optimizing for cost or technical capability, I focused on one question: "Who will maintain this?" The client's team needed to own the automation, not depend on me for every change.

Zapier costs more, but here's what changed everything: the client's team could actually use it. They could navigate through each Zap, understand the logic, and make small edits without calling me. The handoff was smooth, and they gained true independence.

Step 2: The 5-Step Workflow Architecture

Rather than building one massive workflow, I created a simple 5-step Zap:

1. Trigger: Deal marked as "Closed Won" in HubSpot

2. Filter: Only proceed if deal value > $5,000

3. Format: Clean company name for Slack channel

4. Create: Slack channel with standardized naming

5. Notify: Send welcome message with project kickoff info

Step 3: Multiple Small Zaps vs One Large Zap

Instead of cramming everything into one workflow, I created three separate 3-5 step Zaps that worked together. Each handled one specific function: Slack creation, document setup, and team notifications. If one failed, the others kept running.

Step 4: Error Handling and Monitoring

The key insight: plan for failure from day one. I set up monitoring Zaps that tracked when the main workflows failed. Instead of discovering broken automation hours later, the team got immediate notifications when something went wrong.

Step 5: Team Training and Handoff

The final step was crucial: training the client's team to own the automation. Zapier's interface made this possible in a way that N8N never could. Within two weeks, they were making their own modifications and optimizations.

The results spoke for themselves. The startup went from spending hours on manual project setup to having everything automated within minutes of closing deals. But the real victory wasn't time savings - it was team independence.

Immediate Impact:

• Project setup time reduced from 2 hours to 10 minutes

• Zero failed automations in the first month (compared to daily failures on other platforms)

• Team self-sufficiency: they stopped calling me for automation changes

Long-term Benefits:

Six months later, the team had expanded their automation to handle customer onboarding, invoice processing, and project milestone tracking. They built all of this themselves using the principles we established: short workflows, multiple Zaps, and failure planning.

The higher Zapier subscription cost paid for itself within the first month through saved developer hours alone.

After implementing automation across three different platforms with the same client, here are the lessons that will save you months of frustration:

1. Platform usability trumps features - Choose tools your team can actually use long-term

2. 5-7 steps is the sweet spot - Longer workflows have exponentially more failure points

3. Multiple simple Zaps beat one complex Zap - Distributed failure is better than total failure

4. Plan for errors from day one - Monitoring workflows are as important as main workflows

5. Team training is non-negotiable - If your team can't maintain it, you'll become the bottleneck

6. Start simple, then duplicate - Perfect one workflow before building ten

7. Budget for the right platform - Cheap automation that constantly breaks isn't cheap

The biggest mistake I see? Businesses optimizing for technical capability instead of practical maintenance. Your automation is only as good as your team's ability to own it.