# Make vs Celigo: which do AI models recommend for automation & ipaas, September 2026

GTM AI Recommendation Index, September 2026 Edition, Workflow automation and iPaaS. Three of twelve models named Make first on the direct prompt; one named Celigo. Page: https://gtm-ai-index.com/gtm-data/workflow-automation-and-ipaas/make-vs-celigo/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Make | 17% | #2 of 12 | 17% | 48 | 12 of 12 |
| Celigo | 12% | #4 of 12 | 0% | 18 | 11 of 12 |

## The direct prompt, model by model

- Qwen 3.7 Flash: make first (first choices: Make) (alternatives: Tray.ai, Workato)
- Kimi K2: make first (first choices: Make, n8n) (alternatives: Workato, Zapier)
- GLM 4.7 FlashX: make first (first choices: Make) (alternatives: n8n)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: celigo first (first choices: Celigo, Workato) (alternatives: Boomi, Jitterbit, Tray.ai)
- Claude Haiku 4.5: neither first, one named (first choices: Workato) (alternatives: Kissflow, Make, Microsoft Power Automate, Zapier)
- Gemini 3.5 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: Workato) (alternatives: Celigo, Make, Tray.ai)
- Perplexity Sonar: neither first, one named (first choices: Workato) (alternatives: HubSpot Operations Hub, Make, n8n)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: neither first, one named (first choices: Workato) (alternatives: Boomi, Celigo, Make, Tray.ai)
- MiniMax M2.5: neither first, one named (first choices: Boomi, SnapLogic) (alternatives: Make, Microsoft Power Automate)
- GPT-5.4 mini: neither named (first choices: Workato) (alternatives: Boomi, MuleSoft)
- Mistral Small: neither named (first choices: Workato) (alternatives: Jitterbit Harmony, Tray.ai)
- Llama 4 Maverick: neither named (first choices: Boomi, SnapLogic, Workato)

## What the models said about Make

- "powerful and often better value, but it is still best suited to app-to-app automation; if you need strong governance ... it may not be the right fit" (Perplexity Sonar, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "only for lightweight, low-volume, non-critical automations; they're not designed for complex, high-volume B2B data integration" (DeepSeek V4 Flash, paraphrase prompt, soft negative)
- "Strong value for mid-complexity workflows... Avoid for long-running processes or data-sensitive industries." (DeepSeek V4 Flash, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "Choose Make if you are cost-conscious, manage complex agency workflows, or need to process hundreds of records at once cheaply." (Qwen 3.7 Flash, comparative prompt, first choice)
- "Complex Logic on a Budget | Make | Allows loops, deep branching, and data arrays at a fraction of Zapier's cost." (Gemini 3.5 Flash, comparative prompt, first choice)
- "4. Make (Best Value) ... For most small businesses with limited budgets, Make or n8n offer the best balance" (GLM 4.7 FlashX, budget prompt, first choice)

## What the models said about Celigo

- "Best Overall Balance: Celigo ... strikes a perfect middle ground between ease of use and power." (Qwen 3.7 Flash, paraphrase prompt, first choice)
- "Choose Celigo if you want faster time-to-value and lower operational overhead" (DeepSeek V4 Flash, direct prompt, first choice)
- "Celigo: Best Overall for ERP-Centric & B2B E-Commerce Operations" (Gemini 3.5 Flash, paraphrase prompt, first choice)

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category. Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category. Published under CC BY 4.0; the output is the models' output, and nothing here is a recommendation by the index.