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

Make vs Tray.ai

Three of twelve models named Make first on the direct prompt; zero named Tray.ai. Make was named by twelve of the twelve models and Tray.ai by eight and Make carries 48 labels and Tray.ai 23, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Make

accepted challenger

Named in four categories this edition.

Tray.ai

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share17%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate17%13%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#7A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels4823A 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 twelve direct answers. Workato vs Make · Workato vs Tray.ai · Make vs n8n

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; 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 twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
MakeFirst choices, of twelve modelsTray.ai
Direct301 against Make
Paraphrase001 against Make
Comparative30
Budget-constrained60
Scale-constrained02
Negative006 against Make · 3 against Tray.ai
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Across every category in the September 2026 Edition, Make and Tray.ai were named in the same answer thirty-five times, of the 151 answers naming Make and the 44 naming Tray.ai. In those answers Tray.ai took the first choice three times and Make eight.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two 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 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
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 an alternative

3 of 12 modelsTray.ai was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Qwen 3.7 FlashMake alternatives: Tray.ai, Workato
Kimi K2Make, n8n alternatives: Workato, Zapier
GLM 4.7 FlashXMake alternatives: n8n

Neither was the first choice, one was named

7 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Workato alternatives: Kissflow, Make, Microsoft Power Automate, Zapier
Gemini 3.5 FlashWorkato alternatives: Celigo, Make, Tray.ai
Perplexity SonarWorkato alternatives: HubSpot Operations Hub, Make, n8n
Grok 4.1 FastWorkato alternatives: Boomi, Celigo, Make, Tray.ai
Mistral SmallWorkato alternatives: Jitterbit Harmony, Tray.ai
DeepSeek V4 FlashCeligo, Workato alternatives: Boomi, Jitterbit, Tray.ai
MiniMax M2.5Boomi, SnapLogic alternatives: Make, Microsoft Power Automate

Neither was named

2 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniWorkato alternatives: Boomi, MuleSoft
Llama 4 MaverickBoomi, SnapLogic, 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 fifty points.
Make50%#1 of 8
Tray.ai0%#– of 8
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Make leads by thirteen points.
Make17%#2 of 12
Tray.ai4%#7 of 12
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: Tray.ai leads at enterprise.
Tray.ai2%#7 of 11
Make0%#11 of 11
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 eight in this category shown.

“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 Tray.ai

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

“Avoid MuleSoft, Workato, and Tray.io (unless you are a major enterprise)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · hard negative
“powerful, but often overkill for smaller teams, and pricing/implementation complexity can be a major caution” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“Entirely quote-based pricing with no self-serve option—estimated $595+/month starting point” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Tier 1 Middleware platforms (like Workato, Tray.io, or Microsoft Fabric)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Default choice: Workato or Tray.ai” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice
“Choose Workato/Tray.io if you are a large company connecting CRMs to ERPs, require audit trails” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
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.