The Make alternative that builds the scenario for you

Make (formerly Integromat) gives power users a deep visual scenario builder, priced per operation. LiveContext starts from the other end: you describe the job in chat and the workflow assembles itself, AI agents run it under scoped access and hard credit budgets, and the result ships as an app. All in one managed product.

Start free

Free tier · No credit card · Last updated September 2026

When Make fits

Choose Make if you enjoy assembling detailed scenarios module by module, per-operation pricing fits your volume, and you do not need apps on top of your automations.

When LiveContext fits

Choose LiveContext if you want automations built from a plain-language description, AI agents with scoped tools and budgets they cannot exceed, and user-facing apps and data tables included.

LiveContext vs Make, feature by feature

Capability	LiveContext	Make
Build automations by chat	Yes Describe the job; the workflow builds itself in front of you	Partial AI assistant helps; module wiring stays manual
Visual workflow builder	Yes 60+ blocks: branches, loops, parallel fan-out, code, HTTP, files	Yes Deep scenario builder with routers and iterators
AI agents in production	Yes Per-agent tool scoping, credit budget and full audit trail	Partial AI agents exist; fine-grained scoping and spend caps are limited
Ship workflows as apps	Yes Search pages, dashboards and approval screens on top of the workflow	- No Forms only; a separate front-end is needed
Built-in data tables	Yes Spreadsheet-style tables your automations create, find and update	Partial Data stores, with modest limits
Browser-use agent	Yes An agent that opens real web pages, clicks and extracts	- No Not built in
MCP (Model Context Protocol)	Yes Use LiveContext as an MCP server from Claude, Cursor and other clients	Partial Early options
Marketplace	Yes Fork the whole stack: workflow, agents, pages and tables together	Partial Scenario templates

Comparison reflects publicly available information as of September 2026. Products evolve; check both before deciding.

Why teams switch from Make

Describe it instead of assembling it

A Make scenario is built module by module. In LiveContext you type what you want done and the workflow assembles itself; the canvas is for refining, not for starting from zero.

Predictable spend, capped per agent

Per-operation pricing punishes chatty scenarios. LiveContext is credit-based with a free tier, and each agent has a hard budget it cannot exceed.

Apps and tables are part of the product

The screen your team uses and the data your automation reads and writes live in the same platform as the workflow. No separate front-end, no external database for simple operational data.

Team controls built in

Workspaces keep each team's scenarios, credentials and data apart, and the Team plan adds SAML SSO and role-based access, on a managed cloud you do not have to run.

Where Make is the better fit

You like building intricate scenarios by hand and the router/iterator model fits how you think.
You rely on a specific Make app module that has no LiveContext equivalent.
Your volumes are small and per-operation pricing stays cheap for you.

Migrating from Make in three steps

Step 1
Write each scenario as a sentence
For every Make scenario: when X happens, do Y. Routers become branches, iterators become loops or splits.
Step 2
Rebuild it in chat
Paste the sentence into LiveContext and watch the workflow assemble. Fine-tune branching and error paths on the canvas.
Step 3
Run both side by side
Keep the Make scenario on while the LiveContext version runs on real data, compare, then switch the trigger.

Frequently asked questions

Is LiveContext a good Make (Integromat) alternative?

Yes, for teams that want AI-native automation. LiveContext builds workflows from a chat message, runs AI agents with scoped tools and hard credit budgets, and ships workflows as apps with built-in tables. Make remains a capable visual builder for hands-on scenario assembly.

Can I import my Make scenarios into LiveContext?

There is no one-click importer. Most teams rebuild by describing each scenario in chat, which typically takes minutes per scenario, then validate side by side before switching triggers.

How does LiveContext pricing compare to Make?

Make charges per operation, so busy scenarios cost more each month. LiveContext has a free tier and credit-based plans where every agent gets a hard budget it cannot exceed.

Does LiveContext have enough integrations to replace Make?

LiveContext ships 1000+ built-in API integrations with 30,000+ ready-to-call operations, plus a generic HTTP request node, a code node, and custom API definitions for anything not in the catalog.

Try the Make alternative

One message in. A working automation out. Free tier, no credit card.