The difference that matters is not the feature list — it is where your integrations run and what you are left holding. Make (formerly Integromat) executes them on Make's cloud — scenarios execute on their platform only. FlowSetu generates a standard Spring Boot Maven project you compile, deploy and own, with nothing of ours in the running system.
Small teams and solo builders wiring up SaaS apps quickly, with a generous visual canvas and low starting cost. If that describes your team, Make (formerly Integromat) is a reasonable answer and this page is not trying to talk you out of it.
Operations pricing gets unpredictable as scenarios branch and loop, and the scenario is configuration inside Make rather than something you own.
No. Scenarios are configuration stored in Make and can be cloned or exported as a blueprint, but not as a running program. FlowSetu generates a Spring Boot Maven project you compile and run yourself.
FlowSetu, on cost predictability — generated code has no per-operation charge. Make is better when speed of assembly matters more than throughput and the volumes are modest.
No. Make has well over a thousand app connectors; FlowSetu ships around fourteen deep ones aimed at enterprise systems, plus HTTP and a Java step for anything else. Breadth versus depth is the honest trade.
See also: MuleSoft alternative, supported connectors, and pricing.