The 2026 automation problem: speed, governance, and brittle workflows
In 2026, most teams are not choosing between “automation or no automation.” They are choosing how automation gets built, operated, and governed across a stack that includes Google Workspace, a CRM, ticketing, finance tools, and internal data sources. The challenge is rarely a single script or a single integration. It is the operational reality: retries, rate limits, audit trails, permission reviews, and handoffs between teammates.
Google Workspace teams typically reach for Google Apps Script first because it is built-in and close to Sheets, Gmail, Drive, Calendar, and Forms. At the same time, many teams now need cross-app orchestration, visual debugging, and predictable run history without building a mini platform in JavaScript. That is where Make.com increasingly shows up: as an automation layer that sits above tools, not inside one tool.
The best choice for multi-step, cross-app production workflows in Google Workspace
For professional teams automating multi-step processes across Google Workspace and third-party apps, we find Make.com is typically the best fit because it delivers faster orchestration, clearer monitoring, and more robust retry patterns with less bespoke engineering. Google Apps Script remains a strong choice for Google-native customization, especially custom functions, add-ons, and lightweight internal tools where owning code inside Google matters most.
What each tool is, in plain terms
Make.com
Make.com is a visual automation platform where teams build scenarios from modular steps, including Google Workspace modules, third-party SaaS integrations, and generic HTTP actions. It is strongest when workflows require branching, looping, transformation, and observable operations. Many teams pair the product with implementation support such as Make.com consulting and delivery when the goal is production-grade automation, documentation, and governance.
Google Apps Script
Google Apps Script is a JavaScript runtime that runs within Google’s environment and automates Workspace apps using built-in services, Advanced Google Services, and external APIs via UrlFetchApp. It shines when you need deep, Google-native customization: custom spreadsheet functions, add-ons, editor menu items, and tight coupling to Sheets and Gmail behaviors through triggers.
Make.com vs Google Apps Script: Comparison matrix (what matters in 2026)
| Spec | Make.com | Google Apps Script | Who tends to win and why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Execution limits and throughput | Designed for scenario runs with platform-managed execution. Capacity is mainly shaped by plan limits, operations, and integration-specific rate limits. Better fit for batch processing using iterators and aggregators. | Bound by Apps Script quotas and execution time limits, plus trigger constraints. High-volume processing often requires careful chunking, state management, and lock handling. | [WINNER] Make.com for teams expecting growth in volume, complexity, and cross-app fan-out. |
| Error handling, retries, and rate limits | Error routes, configurable retries, and clearer per-step run visibility reduce the need for custom backoff code. Better ergonomics for idempotency patterns in multi-step flows. | Requires try/catch plus manual retry and backoff patterns. Trigger behavior can feel inconsistent at scale, and lock contention can become a real factor in Sheets-heavy systems. | [WINNER] Make.com for production resilience and debuggability without building an internal framework. |
| Integrations and extensibility | Broad catalog of native modules plus generic HTTP. Strong when orchestrating across Slack, HubSpot, Airtable, ticketing, finance, and Google Workspace in one scenario. | Excellent Google-native access plus Advanced Services. External integrations are possible via UrlFetchApp but usually require more boilerplate, auth work, and long-term maintenance. | [WINNER] Make.com for cross-app automation. Apps Script can win for Google-only workflows with custom UI or spreadsheet functions. |
| Security and governance | Enterprise features typically include SSO options such as SAML, role-based access control, and audit logs, depending on plan. A vendor model can be a hurdle for some regulated teams, but it can also centralize governance across apps. | Strong Google Workspace admin controls, scope governance, and policies. Ideal when teams want automation to remain inside Google’s boundary and align with domain restrictions and admin-approved app workflows. | Depends on constraints. Apps Script often wins for Google-native governance needs. [WINNER] Make.com when you need centralized cross-app controls, auditability, and team visibility. |
| DevOps and maintainability | Visual editor, scenario versioning, and run history simplify collaboration for non-developers. Monitoring is operational by default. | Best with clasp, Git, environments, and careful deployment/versioning practices. Powerful for engineering teams, but higher process overhead for business teams. | [WINNER] Make.com for most mixed-skill teams. Apps Script can win for dev teams that already have CI/CD discipline. |
Deep comparison: What breaks first, what scales, and what stays maintainable
Reliability and scale engineering
Apps Script reliability is often underestimated early and overestimated later. For a small automation that runs a few times a day, Apps Script triggers can be perfectly adequate. As volume rises, you start designing around quotas, runtime ceilings, and concurrency edge cases. Sheets-heavy automations introduce additional risks: race conditions during edits, partial writes, and the need for LockService to prevent collisions. Locking works, but it adds complexity and can become a bottleneck.
Make.com is not “infinite,” but it is purpose-built for orchestration. Scenarios provide clearer operational semantics: step-level status, structured error paths, and easier replay. This matters when a workflow touches Gmail, writes to Sheets, posts to Slack, and then creates a HubSpot record. With Apps Script, that same flow often becomes a long function with custom retry logic and manual logging.
Error handling: error routes vs try/catch
Apps Script offers standard JavaScript try/catch, which is powerful but puts the burden on you to define consistent patterns. Teams frequently end up inventing a mini framework: a retry wrapper, rate limit backoff, a dead-letter queue using Sheets or PropertiesService, plus custom alerting.
Make.com’s approach is more operational: errors can be handled at the module level using dedicated error pathways and retry behaviors. In practice, we see this reduce “silent failure” risk, especially for workflows that run unattended. When stakeholders ask, “What happened to yesterday’s approvals?” Make’s run history is usually faster to interpret than Logs plus bespoke correlation IDs.
API Webhooks and inbound events
Apps Script web apps (doGet and doPost deployments) can absolutely act as lightweight endpoints, and they are useful for quick internal callbacks. The limitations are less about possibility and more about operational fit: deployment/versioning friction, authentication patterns, and how you manage noisy inbound traffic. Many teams also have to contend with OAuth consent and scope verification when integrating with sensitive or restricted Google scopes.
Make.com webhooks are typically simpler for event ingestion from external tools and they are designed to feed directly into routers, filters, iterators, and data mapping. If your endpoint is the start of a multi-app workflow, Make’s “receive, transform, branch, persist” flow is usually faster to build and easier to observe.
API integrations and authentication details in 2026
Apps Script can call external REST APIs via UrlFetchApp, and it can integrate with Google APIs via built-in services or Advanced Google Services. Where teams slow down is authentication and governance. OAuth 2.0 flows can require careful consent screen setup, scope minimization, and token storage patterns using PropertiesService or a Google Cloud secret store pattern. For Workspace domain-wide access, teams often end up linking a Cloud project and handling admin approvals and policy constraints.
Make.com’s connection model is generally less code-heavy. It centralizes tokens per connection and makes it easier for non-engineers to maintain integrations without editing source code. This is not inherently “more secure,” but it is often more manageable for teams that want fewer custom auth implementations to audit.
Data transformation and workflow logic
Apps Script is code, so transformation is unlimited in theory. In practice, complex parsing, deduping, and multi-branch logic becomes a maintenance burden, especially when multiple people need to modify it. Make.com’s built-in mapping and transformation utilities, plus routers and iterators, often reduce the total surface area for bugs. That difference becomes noticeable when workflows include approvals, conditional routing, and batch reconciliation.
Google Workspace automation: Which tool feels better day to day?
Is Make.com better than Apps Script for Sheets and Gmail automation?
For basic tasks like “when a row changes, send an email,” Apps Script is efficient and direct, especially with onEdit triggers. It is also excellent for spreadsheet-native features like custom functions and menu-driven tools.
For operational workflows like “ingest form submissions, enrich from a CRM, send Gmail sequences, write back to Sheets, notify Slack, and create a Drive folder,” we find Make.com handles the orchestration more cleanly. The reason is not that Apps Script cannot do it. The reason is that Make.com makes the behavior visible and maintainable without building custom monitoring, replay, and error routing.
Multi-step approvals in Google Workspace
Apps Script is strong when approvals must live inside a Google Sheet or a custom sidebar UI, and when you want full control over the interface. Make.com tends to win when approvals span tools: Gmail approvals, Slack approvals, ticket approvals, plus synchronized updates to Sheets, Drive permissions, and CRM records.
Internal tools and custom functions
If your goal is to build internal tooling inside Sheets, such as custom formulas, validation utilities, or add-ons, Apps Script is usually the right tool. Make.com is not trying to replace spreadsheet formulas or sidebar apps. It is strongest as the workflow layer that moves data between systems and keeps processes consistent.
Make.com pricing vs Google Apps Script cost: What teams miss
Apps Script feels “free” because it is included with Google Workspace, but teams often pay in engineering time: building retry logic, maintaining OAuth implementations, and supporting edge cases when quotas or runtime limits appear. For small businesses running simple automations, that trade can be acceptable.
Make.com charges based on usage concepts like operations. For teams with many workflows or a need for reliable run history, the paid model can be easier to justify because the platform replaces custom infrastructure. If you want to evaluate effort and total cost clearly, we recommend starting with a small proof of value in Make.com, then formalizing build standards with a delivery partner such as Make automation implementation services.
Security and governance: Google-native controls vs vendor enterprise controls
Where Apps Script is genuinely strong
Apps Script benefits from Google Workspace admin controls: domain restrictions, app allowlisting and admin approval flows, and policy-driven governance around OAuth scopes. For organizations that prioritize keeping automation inside Google’s boundary, that can simplify risk reviews. It can also align better with DLP expectations when data is intended to remain within Google systems.
Where Make.com tends to be stronger for teams
Make.com introduces a vendor boundary, so security evaluation is required. For many professional teams, the payoff is centralized governance across all connected SaaS tools: access control, team collaboration, and auditability that is usable by ops teams, not just developers. In practice, this reduces “shadow automation” because teams can standardize how workflows are built and monitored.
When should we choose Apps Script instead of Make.com?
- You need Google-native UI and spreadsheet-native features: custom functions, add-ons, custom menus, sidebars, and tightly embedded tools.
- You have strong JavaScript capacity and want code ownership: you already run Git workflows, CI/CD via clasp, and you can maintain auth and retries consistently.
- You want automation to remain inside Google’s environment: governance and admin controls outweigh cross-app orchestration benefits.
When does Make.com usually win for professional teams?
- Cross-app workflows: Google Workspace plus Slack, HubSpot, Airtable, ticketing, finance, and data enrichment services.
- Complex routing and batching: routers, filters, iterators, aggregators, and reliable orchestration without building a framework.
- Production operations: clear run history, faster troubleshooting, and consistent handling of partial failures and retries.
- Collaboration: teams where ops and systems owners, not just developers, need to understand and adjust workflows.
Migration guidance: moving between Apps Script and Make.com
Apps Script to Make.com
- Document triggers and entry points: time-driven triggers, onEdit, onFormSubmit, and web app endpoints.
- Separate business logic from Google-specific calls: identify transforms, branching, and external API calls.
- Rebuild orchestration in Make.com: use modules for Sheets, Gmail, Drive, plus HTTP where needed.
- Define idempotency: decide how you detect duplicates, for example row IDs, message IDs, or external system keys.
- Implement error routes and alerting: replicate the script’s try/catch paths with scenario-level error handling.
Make.com to Apps Script
This is usually only advisable when the workflow becomes Google-only and you need spreadsheet-native UI or custom functions. Expect to implement your own run logging, backoff, and replay patterns.
Summary: what we would pick, based on the job to be done
- Best for cross-app, production-grade workflows: Make.com [WINNER]
- Best for Google-native scripting, add-ons, and custom spreadsheet functions: Google Apps Script
- Best for teams that need help operationalizing automation at scale: Make.com implementation support [WINNER]
If you are deciding between no-code vs code automation, we suggest using Apps Script where Google-native customization is the product, and using Make.com where the workflow is the product. That distinction is what usually determines long-term reliability and cost.
”
}
