AiRecMark/Comparisons/Make vs Dify

HASH: 0xa356...6e42 • SNAPSHOT: 2026-09-17 • CORPUS: WORKFLOW AUTOMATION CATEGORY • DIMS V2-5DIM verified SCORING RUBRIC v2

EMPIRICAL BENCHMARK DOSSIER N=2 ARCHIVED TOOLS • 5 DIMENSIONS

Make vs Dify: Governed automation vs flexible canvases

Make (visual automation with 2,000+ app integrations) and Dify (open source LLM app platform: agents, RAG pipelines and workflows) go head-to-head across AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index — quality, features, usability, performance and value — with every score drawn from published tool archives as of 2026-09-17. Which workflow automation tool should teams standardize on?

workspace_premium AiRecMark Verified Winner

Make Wins by +2.7 Overall Points

Make (84.7/100) leads the Airecmark five-dimension composite, taking Output Quality, Feature Depth, Performance, Value for Money. Dify (82.0/100) holds a tie on the remaining dimensions.

Delta: +2.7 Composite Score Dify Best Axis: Usability

Make 84.7

Output Quality

Feature Depth

Usability76

Performance

Value for Money

Inspect Make →

Dify 82.0

Output Quality84

Feature Depth86

Usability76

Performance78

Value for Money84

Inspect Dify →

Archive vectors

5-Axis Differential Engine Performance

Make

Dify

Performance +6.0 pt Lead

Make takes Performance by 6.0 points (84 vs 78) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

MAKE (84)84 / 100

DIFY (78)78 / 100

Value for Money +4.0 pt Lead

Make takes Value for Money by 4.0 points (88 vs 84) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

MAKE (88)88 / 100

DIFY (84)84 / 100

Feature Depth +2.0 pt Lead

Make takes Feature Depth by 2.0 points (88 vs 86) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

MAKE (88)88 / 100

DIFY (86)86 / 100

Scenario Architecture

Choose Your Workflow Automation Tool by Working Style

Both tools sit near the top of the workflow automation category, but their dimension profiles and pricing models produce clearly distinct working styles.

terminal

Standardize on Make if...

Optimized for: Power users automating multi-step cross-app workflows

check_circle Composite lead (84.7/100): tops the Airecmark index against Dify (82.0/100) on the archive-recorded five-dimension composite.
check_circle Leads Output Quality (85 vs 84): a 1-point edge on the deterministic index.
check_circle ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Dify.
check_circle Visual builder with deep branching logic: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Dify.

SUBSCRIPTION TIER $12 / mo

Try Make arrow_forward freemium • from $12/mo • Make (Celonis)

speed

Standardize on Dify if...

Optimized for: Teams Building RAG & Agent Apps

check_circle True open source Community Edition (Docker self-deploy): cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Make.
check_circle Visual Workflow Studio plus Knowledge Pipeline: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Make.
check_circle BYOK after included model credits: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Make.
check_circle Strongest axis — Feature Depth (86/100): its top archive-recorded dimension, optimized for teams Building RAG & Agent Apps.

SUBSCRIPTION TIER $590 / yr

Try Dify arrow_forward freemium • from $590/yr • LangGenius (Dify)

Empirical Breakdown

5-Axis Benchmark Deep Dive

Dimension scores are drawn from the AiRecMark tool archives (V2-5DIM, as of 2026-09-17) on a 0-100 scale; per-axis winner calls use the higher dimension score with deterministic tie handling.

AXIS 01

Output Quality

Accuracy, depth and reliability of primary outputs

MAKE: 8.5 / 10 DIFY: 8.4 / 10

Make — Output Quality

Make posts 85 / 100 on Output Quality. The audit highlights ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan and visual builder with deep branching logic as its signature strengths.

Dify — Output Quality

Dify posts 84 / 100 on Output Quality. The audit highlights true open source Community Edition (Docker self-deploy) and visual Workflow Studio plus Knowledge Pipeline as its signature strengths.

AXIS 02

Feature Depth

Breadth, maturity and extensibility of the capability set

MAKE: 8.8 / 10 DIFY: 8.6 / 10

Make — Feature Depth

Make posts 88 / 100 on Feature Depth. The audit highlights ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan and visual builder with deep branching logic as its signature strengths.

Dify — Feature Depth

Dify posts 86 / 100 on Feature Depth. The audit highlights true open source Community Edition (Docker self-deploy) and visual Workflow Studio plus Knowledge Pipeline as its signature strengths.

AXIS 03

Usability

Onboarding, interface clarity and daily ergonomics

MAKE: 7.6 / 10 DIFY: 7.6 / 10 STATISTICAL TIE

Make — Usability

Make posts 76 / 100 on Usability. The audit highlights ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan and visual builder with deep branching logic as its signature strengths.

Dify — Usability

Dify posts 76 / 100 on Usability. The audit highlights true open source Community Edition (Docker self-deploy) and visual Workflow Studio plus Knowledge Pipeline as its signature strengths.

AXIS 04

Performance

Speed, stability and consistency under production load

MAKE: 8.4 / 10 DIFY: 7.8 / 10

Make — Performance

Make posts 84 / 100 on Performance. The audit highlights ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan and visual builder with deep branching logic as its signature strengths.

Dify — Performance

Dify posts 78 / 100 on Performance. The audit highlights true open source Community Edition (Docker self-deploy) and visual Workflow Studio plus Knowledge Pipeline as its signature strengths.

AXIS 05

Value for Money

Pricing fairness relative to delivered capability

MAKE: 8.8 / 10 DIFY: 8.4 / 10

Make — Value for Money

Make posts 88 / 100 on Value for Money. Published entry pricing: Core $12 / mo (10k credits) · Free 1k credits.

Dify — Value for Money

Dify posts 84 / 100 on Value for Money. Published entry pricing: Sandbox free (200 credits) · Professional $590/workspace/yr · Team $1,590/yr · Community self-host free.

Feature-by-Feature Matrix

Exhaustive Technical Specification Diff

COMPLIANCE: AIRECMARK EVALUATION PROTOCOL V2.4

Capability / Specification	Make ($12/mo)	Dify ($590/yr)	Deterministic Winner
Overall AirecMark Score Composite of the five recorded dimensions	84.7 / 100	82.0 / 100	Make (Composite lead)
Output Quality Accuracy, depth and reliability of primary outputs	85 / 100	84 / 100	Make (+1 pts)
Feature Depth Breadth, maturity and extensibility of the capability set	88 / 100	86 / 100	Make (+2 pts)
Usability Onboarding, interface clarity and daily ergonomics	76 / 100	76 / 100	Tie (Identical score)
Performance Speed, stability and consistency under production load	84 / 100	78 / 100	Make (+6 pts)
Value for Money Pricing fairness relative to delivered capability	88 / 100	84 / 100	Make (+4 pts)
Starting Price Published entry pricing (USD)	Core $12 / mo (10k credits) · Free 1k credits	Sandbox free (200 credits) · Professional $590/workspace/yr · Team $1,590/yr · Community self-host free	Tie (Different pricing models)
Best For Documented target audience	Power users automating multi-step cross-app workflows	Teams Building RAG & Agent Apps	Tie (Use-case dependent)

Engineering Operations

Migration Playbook: Switching Without Friction

Swapping a daily driver mid-project is costly. Follow this three-step checklist to evaluate Make and Dify on equal terms before standardizing your team.

01

Export Config, Prompts & Data

Inventory what each candidate needs: prompt libraries, templates, connected accounts and project files. Export from your current stack first so Make and Dify start from the same baseline.

SETUP: SAME BASELINE

02

Map Pricing to Your Real Usage

Compare published entry tiers against your expected volume. Make starts at $12/mo (freemium); Dify starts at $590/yr (freemium) — model the monthly cost at your actual workload before committing.

ECONOMICS: PUBLISHED TIERS

03

Run a Two-Week Parallel Trial

Run both tools on the same live tasks for ten working days. Score outputs against the five Airecmark dimensions, then let the 2.7-point composite gap — not vendor marketing — decide the standardization call.

balance

Deterministic Evaluation Methodology & Integrity Standard

AiRecMark evaluates every tool against its deterministic five-dimension index (Quality, Features, Usability, Performance, Value) using official documentation, published pricing pages and the published five-dimension rubric. All scores, deltas and winner calls in this dossier are drawn from the published tool archives as of 2026-09-17 and can be traced back to the public tool profiles.

Affiliate Blind Trust Policy: Any referral commissions or partner links generated through AiRecMark are routed into a blind trust utilized exclusively to fund bare-metal compute benchmarks. Zero sponsored placement or ranking distortion is permitted under any circumstances.

BENCHMARK ENGINE: AIRECMARK-DETERMINISTIC-V2.4 • SOURCE: DATA/TOOLS/*.JSON

Archive Record