From Zapier Chaos to Make Mastery: Why I Migrated 20+ Client Workflows (And You Should Too)

Three months ago, I was staring at a Zapier dashboard showing 47 failed automation executions for a single B2B startup client. Their HubSpot-to-Slack integration had crashed again, and this time it took down their entire project creation workflow. The founder was frustrated, the team was manually creating Slack groups for every new deal, and I was spending more time debugging automations than building them.

That's when I made a decision that changed how I approach automation for all my clients: I migrated everything to Make (formerly Integromat). Not because Make is perfect, but because I learned that the "easiest" automation platform isn't always the most reliable one for growing businesses.

If you're running a SaaS startup or agency with complex workflows, you've probably hit similar walls with Zapier. The pricing scales brutally with usage, error handling stops entire workflows, and advanced logic requires expensive premium features. Meanwhile, you're trying to build a business, not become a Zapier debugging expert.

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

• Why I moved 3 different client automation stacks from Zapier to Make

• The exact migration process I use to transfer workflows without breaking operations

• Which automations should stay in Zapier (yes, some should)

• How to handle the technical complexity without becoming a developer

• Real cost comparisons and reliability improvements from actual client projects

This isn't another "Make vs Zapier" comparison post. This is a step-by-step playbook based on migrating real businesses with real consequences if the automations break. Let's dive into what actually works.

Every automation expert will tell you the same thing: "Start with Zapier because it's easier, then migrate to Make when you outgrow it." The problem? Most businesses never make that migration, even when Zapier is costing them thousands monthly and failing regularly.

Here's the conventional migration wisdom you'll find everywhere:

1. Export your Zapier workflows - Use Zapier's built-in export feature to document your existing automations

2. Recreate them in Make - Rebuild each workflow using Make's visual scenario builder

3. Test everything thoroughly - Run parallel systems until you're confident in the new setup

4. Switch over gradually - Migrate one workflow at a time to minimize risk

5. Train your team - Get everyone comfortable with Make's interface and concepts

This advice exists because it's technically correct. Make does offer more control, better error handling, and lower costs at scale. The visual interface is more intuitive once you understand it, and the conditional logic capabilities far exceed Zapier's basic filters.

But here's where this conventional approach falls short: it completely ignores the business disruption. Most SaaS teams can't afford to have their lead generation, customer onboarding, or project management automations down for even a few hours. The "test everything thoroughly" advice sounds great until you realize you're running duplicate workflows, paying for both platforms, and essentially doubling your automation maintenance overhead during the transition.

The industry treats this like a technical migration when it's actually a business continuity challenge. That's why most companies stay stuck with expensive, unreliable Zapier setups instead of making the switch that would save them money and headaches long-term.

My real introduction to this problem came through a B2B startup that was spending $400 monthly on Zapier for what should have been simple automations. Every time they closed a deal in HubSpot, someone had to manually create a Slack group for the project. Small task, right? But multiply that by dozens of deals per month, and you've got hours of repetitive work that should be automated.

The client had tried setting up the automation themselves using Zapier, but they kept hitting walls. The workflow would work fine for a few days, then suddenly stop. When I dug into their setup, I found the classic Zapier problem: when one step fails, everything stops. Their HubSpot integration would timeout occasionally, and instead of just that one task failing, the entire workflow would halt until someone manually reset it.

Here's what their original Zapier workflow looked like:

1. New deal marked as "Won" in HubSpot

2. Create new Slack channel with deal name and client info

3. Invite relevant team members based on deal size

4. Post welcome message with project details

5. Create corresponding Asana project and link it

Simple enough, but the failure rate was around 15%. That meant roughly 1 in every 7 new projects required manual intervention. The team was spending more time fixing automations than they saved by having them.

I initially tried optimizing their Zapier setup - adding delays, error handling, webhook alternatives. But I kept running into the fundamental limitations: expensive multi-step workflows, limited conditional logic, and that dreaded "all-or-nothing" execution model.

That's when I proposed something the client initially resisted: migrating everything to Make. They were worried about learning a new platform, afraid of breaking their existing workflows, and honestly skeptical that the migration would be worth the effort. I understood their hesitation - they were running a business, not a technology experiment.

The key to successful Zapier-to-Make migration isn't technical prowess - it's having a bulletproof process that ensures business continuity. After migrating three different client automation stacks, I've developed a framework that minimizes risk while maximizing the benefits of Make's superior capabilities.

Phase 1: Workflow Audit and Mapping (Week 1)

First, I document every existing Zapier workflow, but not the way most tutorials suggest. Instead of just listing steps, I map out the business impact of each automation. Which workflows are mission-critical? Which ones failing would immediately disrupt operations? Which are nice-to-have optimizations?

For the B2B startup client, I categorized their 12 Zapier workflows into three tiers:

• Critical: Deal-to-Slack project creation (business stops if this fails)

• Important: Lead nurturing email sequences (delays hurt but don't break operations)

• Optimization: Internal reporting automations (manual backup exists)

Phase 2: Parallel Build Strategy (Week 2-3)

Here's where my approach differs from conventional wisdom. Instead of rebuilding workflows one-by-one, I build the entire Make infrastructure in parallel while keeping Zapier running. This means temporarily running duplicate automations, but it's the only way to ensure zero downtime.

The key insight: Make's scenario structure is fundamentally different from Zapier's linear flow. Where Zapier thinks in sequential steps, Make thinks in branching logic. This means you can't just "translate" workflows - you need to redesign them to leverage Make's strengths.

For the Slack project creation workflow, I rebuilt it in Make with much more sophisticated error handling:

• Multiple webhook endpoints for redundancy

• Conditional branches that handle different deal types

• Error paths that log failures but don't stop the entire scenario

• Automatic retry logic with exponential backoff

Phase 3: Shadow Testing (Week 4)

This is the most critical phase that most migration guides skip entirely. I run both systems simultaneously for at least a week, but the Make scenarios are in "shadow mode" - they execute all the logic but don't perform the final actions (like actually creating Slack channels).

Instead, they log what they would do to a Google Sheet. This lets me compare outputs between Zapier and Make without risking duplicate actions. When I found discrepancies (which happened about 20% of the time initially), I could debug the Make scenarios without any business impact.

Phase 4: Gradual Cutover (Week 5-6)

Only after shadow testing proves the Make scenarios are more reliable than the Zapier workflows do I start the actual migration. But I don't switch everything at once. I start with the optimization-tier workflows, then move to important ones, and finally tackle the critical automations.

For each cutover, I:

1. Disable the Zapier workflow during low-activity hours

2. Enable the corresponding Make scenario

3. Monitor closely for 24 hours

4. Keep the Zapier workflow ready to re-enable if needed

The client was amazed at how smooth this process was. What they expected to be a disruptive technical migration ended up being nearly invisible to their daily operations.

The results from this migration were immediate and measurable. Within the first month after completing the transition, the client saw their automation failure rate drop from 15% to under 2%. More importantly, when failures did occur, they were isolated to specific branches of the scenario rather than killing the entire workflow.

Cost Impact: Their monthly automation costs dropped from $400 to $180, despite adding more sophisticated logic and error handling. Make's pricing model meant they could build more complex scenarios without hitting usage limits.

Reliability Improvement: The most dramatic change was in their deal-to-Slack automation. What previously failed 1-2 times per week now runs consistently. The few times it has encountered errors, the built-in retry logic resolved them automatically without human intervention.

Team Productivity: Here's what surprised everyone: the team actually found Make easier to modify than Zapier. The visual scenario builder made the logic more transparent, and they could make small adjustments without worrying about breaking downstream steps.

Six months later, they've expanded their automation footprint significantly. What started as 12 simple Zapier workflows has evolved into 8 sophisticated Make scenarios that handle everything from lead qualification to project delivery notifications. The reliability has given them confidence to automate processes they previously handled manually.

After migrating three different client automation stacks from Zapier to Make, here are the critical lessons that make the difference between success and failure:

1. Business continuity trumps technical elegance - The best migration plan is the one that never disrupts operations, even if it takes longer

2. Shadow testing is non-negotiable - Running parallel systems seems expensive but prevents disasters that cost far more

3. Not everything needs to migrate - Simple, one-step automations often work fine in Zapier and aren't worth moving

4. Make's learning curve is steeper initially but pays off quickly - Teams that invest time in understanding scenarios build much more robust automations

5. Error handling design matters more than workflow logic - How your automation fails is more important than how it succeeds

6. Visual documentation becomes crucial - Make's scenario view makes it easier to onboard new team members to existing automations

7. Migration timing depends on growth stage - Early-stage startups might benefit from Zapier's simplicity, but scaling businesses need Make's flexibility

The biggest mistake I see teams make is treating this as a technical migration instead of a business process improvement. The goal isn't to move workflows - it's to build more reliable automation infrastructure that supports growth rather than limiting it.