Azaris vs Make
In one sentence
Make is a visual canvas where you engineer scenarios, operation by operation; Azaris is an agent you brief in a sentence.
The core difference
Make is loved by people who enjoy the canvas: routers, filters, iterators, error handlers. Real engineering, drawn instead of typed. That power has a cost: someone has to build the scenario, test the branches, and fix it when a connected app changes. And every run spends operations against your plan. Azaris moves the engineering to the agent: you describe the outcome, it works out the steps each time, including the step where it stops and asks you.
Side by side
| Capability | Make | Azaris |
|---|---|---|
| Visual scenario builder | ✕ | |
| Takes a goal in plain language | ✕ | |
| Adapts when reality changes | ✕ | |
| Judgment calls drafted for your sign-off | ✕ | |
| Persistent memory of how you work | ✕ | |
| Lives in your chat apps | ✕ | |
| Flat monthly price | per operation | |
| Bring your own model key | ✕ | |
| Nothing to maintain when apps change | ✕ |
What Make is great at
- Complex branching pipelines a specialist designs once and runs at volume.
- Fine-grained control over every field mapping and error path.
- Teams that have an automation person who owns the canvas.
Where Azaris fills the gap
- No build phase: the brief is the whole setup.
- Work with judgment in the middle, not just data in motion.
- A bill that doesn't count your operations.
- Reports that come to you, in your chat apps, in plain language.
The honest verdict
If you have an automation engineer who loves the canvas, Make earns its seat. If you are the person who'd otherwise have to become one, brief Azaris instead.
Ready to put Azaris to work?Set up in an afternoon, or have us build the whole thing.Get your agentWant it built for you?