# Make vs Tray.ai: 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; zero named Tray.ai. Page: https://gtm-ai-index.com/gtm-data/workflow-automation-and-ipaas/make-vs-tray-ai/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Make | 17% | #2 of 12 | 17% | 48 | 12 of 12 |
| Tray.ai | 4% | #7 of 12 | 13% | 23 | 8 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)
- 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)
- Mistral Small: neither first, one named (first choices: Workato) (alternatives: Jitterbit Harmony, Tray.ai)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: Celigo, Workato) (alternatives: Boomi, Jitterbit, 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)
- 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 Tray.ai

- "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)

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.