AI Indexes
GTM AI Index
Index › GTM data and infrastructure › Automation & iPaaS › Make vs Tray.ai
Workflow automation and iPaaS · October 2026 Edition

Make vs Tray.ai

Three of fourteen models named Make first on the direct prompt; zero named Tray.ai. Make was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Tray.ai by ten and Make carries 55 labels and Tray.ai 19, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Make

accepted challenger

Named in seven categories this edition.

Tray.ai

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share21%5%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate11%21%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels5519A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Make reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Workato was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Workato vs Make · Workato vs Tray.ai · Make vs Celigo

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the workflow automation and ipaas page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
MakeFirst choices, of fourteen modelsTray.ai
Direct301 against Tray.ai
Paraphrase011 against Make
Comparative10
Budget-constrained90
Scale-constrained02
Negative005 against Make · 3 against Tray.ai
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Make and Tray.ai were named in the same answer twenty-nine times, of the 172 answers naming Make and the 47 naming Tray.ai. In those answers Tray.ai took the first choice four times and Make six.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Make and Tray.ai stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Make Tray.ai first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Make on the left and Tray.ai on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Make and Tray.ai stood in it.

Make first, Tray.ai not the choice

3 of 14 modelsTray.ai was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Kimi K2Make alternatives: Microsoft Power Automate, Zapier
GLM 4.7 FlashXMake alternatives: Zapier, n8n
MiniMax M2.5Make, Zapier alternatives: Workato

Neither was the first choice, one was named

6 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Gemini 3.5 FlashCeligo alternatives: Make, Tray.ai, Workato, Zapier
Perplexity SonarWorkato alternatives: HubSpot Operations Hub, Make, Zapier
Grok 4.20Workato alternatives: Boomi, Celigo, Make, Tray.ai, Zapier
DeepSeek V4 FlashCeligo, Workato alternatives: Make, Microsoft Power Automate
Qwen 3.7 FlashWorkato alternatives: Jitterbit Harmony, Make, Microsoft Power Automate
GPT-6 LunaWorkato alternatives: Boomi, Make, Microsoft Power Automate

Neither was named

5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice
GPT-5.4 miniWorkato alternatives: Boomi, Microsoft Power Automate, MuleSoft Anypoint Platform, Zapier
Mistral SmallWorkato alternatives: HubSpot Marketing Hub, Jitterbit Harmony, Microsoft Power Automate
Llama 4 MaverickAdRoll ABM alternatives: Boomi, Celigo's integrator.io
Muse Glimmer 30BCeligo integrator.io, Workato

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Make leads by forty-four points.
Make44%#1 of 9
Tray.ai0%#– of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Make leads by sixteen points.
Make21%#2 of 11
Tray.ai5%#7 of 11
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Tray.ai leads at enterprise.
Tray.ai2%#6 of 14
Make0%#14 of 14
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Make

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of six in this category shown.

“Make.com given reliability decline and support issues” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“Examples: Complex setups on Make (formerly Integromator) or Retool ... they encourage bad architecture if not strictly governed.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“platforms like Make or n8n can be powerful, but they become harder to maintain as flows grow more branched” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“For most budget-conscious companies, Make offers the best balance of affordability, capability, and ease of use” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Make offers the best balance of capability, visual ease-of-use, and cost.” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
“Best Overall for Non-Developers: Make.com ... Make is the industry-standard budget choice.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Tray.ai

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“Enterprise-scale complexity; pricing is prohibitive for mid-market.” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · hard negative
“not bad tools, but they are often enterprise-first and can require significant IT involvement” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“Avoid Workato or Tray.io if you have a tight budget or simple needs” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Workato and Tray.io tend to hit the sweet spot for this stage” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Tools like Workato or Tray.io shine for your size” Grok 4.20 · scale prompt · first choice
“The Best Overall Choice: Tray.io” Qwen 3.7 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.