Why teams still struggle with integrations in 2026
In 2026, most organizations are running a mixed stack: SaaS systems of record (CRM, ERP, HRIS), data platforms, and a growing layer of internal tools that depend on API webhooks, event triggers, and scheduled syncs. The friction has shifted from “Can we connect these systems?” to “Can we connect them reliably, governably, and at a cost that scales with usage?” That is why teams compare a full enterprise iPaaS (Integration Platform as a Service) like Boomi to a cloud automation platform like Make.com.
We evaluated both through the lens of professional delivery: integration runtime models, hybrid networking realities, SDLC governance, observability, connector depth, transformation, and total cost of ownership. The goal is not to crown a universal winner. It is to match platform strengths to real deployment constraints.
The Best Choice for fast, cost-controlled SaaS workflow automation
For teams primarily integrating cloud apps, building webhook-driven automations, and iterating quickly with business stakeholders, Make.com is the better fit. Its operations-based pricing and highly visual builder make delivery faster and more predictable for most SMB and mid-market workloads. Boomi is the stronger choice when hybrid runtimes, enterprise SDLC governance, and B2B or API management are hard requirements.
What Make.com and Boomi are actually designed to do
Make.com: cloud-first workflow automation with iPaaS-like range
Make.com (formerly Integromat) is widely adopted for building automations across SaaS tools using a visual scenario builder, webhooks, and prebuilt app modules. In practice, we see it used as a lightweight iPaaS for cloud-first stacks, especially where speed of change matters more than formal change-control. Teams often start with a production-grade proof of value in days, then harden reliability patterns (retries, idempotency, alerts) as usage grows.
If you want to evaluate it hands-on, we recommend starting with a sandbox via the Make.com account registration, then mapping the first 2 to 3 business-critical flows. For implementation support, governance setup, and scenario design standards, we typically point teams to a structured delivery approach through Make.com consulting and implementation services.
Boomi (Dell Boomi): enterprise iPaaS built for governed integration programs
Boomi (formerly AtomSphere) is a mature enterprise iPaaS. Its core strength is running integrations with strong governance across cloud and on-prem environments through its runtime options: Atom (single runtime), Molecule (clustered runtime), and Atom Cloud (Boomi-managed). Boomi also has deeper capabilities in areas that matter to enterprise integration programs: complex data integration patterns, API management, and B2B/EDI options depending on edition and add-ons.
Make.com vs Boomi comparison matrix (2026)
We scored each category based on what professional teams typically need for delivery, reliability, and maintainability. The “winner” is contextual: it reflects the most common buyer profile reading this guide, namely cloud-first teams delivering many SaaS automations with limited appetite for enterprise licensing overhead.
| Spec | Make.com | Boomi | Who it favors |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Deployment and execution model |
Cloud execution with webhook and scheduled triggers. Best when endpoints are internet-accessible or can safely expose inbound webhooks. Limited “behind the firewall” options compared to agent-based runtimes. [WINNER] |
Atom, Molecule, and Atom Cloud provide flexible runtime placement, including on-prem and private networks. Strong for hybrid integration patterns and regulated environments. | Make.com for cloud-first speed. Boomi for true hybrid and on-prem runtime control. |
| 2) Connector ecosystem and extensibility |
Broad catalog of SaaS apps, practical HTTP modules for REST APIs, fast iteration for long-tail tools. Strong for marketing, ops, RevOps, and internal workflow automation. [WINNER] |
Strong enterprise app connectivity and protocol support, often preferred when integrating ERP and enterprise suites. Connector depth can be excellent, but implementation tends to be heavier. | Make.com for breadth and speed across many SaaS tools. Boomi for enterprise-standard integration programs. |
| 3) Data transformation and mapping | Solid mapping for typical SaaS payloads (JSON, CSV-like structures) and common transformations. Best for operational automations rather than heavy ETL. |
Stronger tooling for complex transformations, hierarchical structures, and integration patterns closer to ETL/ELT. Better when canonical models, reusability, and large batch performance are central. [WINNER] |
Boomi for complex data integration. Make.com for day-to-day SaaS workflow transformations. |
| 4) API management and B2B/EDI | Excellent for webhook-driven workflows and exposing lightweight endpoints. Not positioned as a full API gateway with advanced policy management. EDI is typically handled via partners or custom builds. |
Stronger native posture for API management use cases and enterprise integration patterns. B2B and EDI capabilities are a common reason enterprises standardize on Boomi. [WINNER] |
Boomi for API gateway, partner integrations, and EDI-heavy requirements. Make.com for pragmatic API webhooks and operational endpoints. |
| 5) Governance, monitoring, and total cost of ownership |
Faster onboarding, easier learning curve, and clearer unit economics for many teams via operations-based pricing. Monitoring and error handling are strong for its class, with practical alerting patterns, but enterprise SDLC controls may require process discipline and conventions. [WINNER] |
Enterprise-grade governance patterns and support structures, often paired with stronger SDLC expectations. Cost and licensing overhead can be significant for smaller teams or high-iteration automation backlogs. | Make.com for cost control and rapid delivery. Boomi for formal governance at enterprise scale. |
The differences that matter in real deployments
Hybrid and on-prem reality check: what “behind the firewall” really means
In procurement conversations, “on-prem support” can mean anything from “we have an agent that calls out” to “we can keep data entirely off the public internet.” In practice, Boomi’s Atom and Molecule runtimes are designed for hybrid connectivity patterns, often using outbound-only network rules, proxies, and controlled egress to reach Boomi services. This supports many enterprise security models where inbound firewall openings are prohibited and where private connectivity patterns are required.
Make.com is cloud-first. That is not a weakness by itself, but it is a boundary. If core systems sit in private networks with strict segmentation, Make.com typically needs an acceptable path for data to traverse to cloud execution, either through approved public endpoints, tightly scoped inbound webhook exposure, or intermediary services. For many SMB stacks that live in SaaS, that is perfectly acceptable. For highly regulated hybrid estates, Boomi is often the safer architectural match.
Enterprise SDLC governance: dev, test, prod and CI/CD in practice
Boomi aligns well with teams that run formal SDLC: environment separation (dev, test, prod), controlled promotions, and change approval workflows. Enterprises often pair this with source control strategies and release management processes, even if the platform’s artifacts do not map 1:1 to a typical Git workflow. The result is usually stronger auditability when teams must prove who changed what and when.
Make.com can support disciplined delivery, but it relies more on team conventions: naming standards, scenario folder structure, environment-specific variables, review checklists, and controlled access via RBAC and SSO where available. If your organization demands fully formalized CI/CD with strict environment promotion gates, Boomi will generally feel more “native” to that operating model. If your priority is throughput, Make.com tends to ship value faster.
Reliability engineering: idempotency, retries, backfills, and observability
Reliability is where teams feel the difference between “workflow automation” and “enterprise integration.” Boomi’s runtime model supports robust operational patterns at scale, including structured monitoring, centralized operations, and enterprise-grade support expectations. It is a common fit when failure modes include partial writes, ordering constraints, and complex replay requirements.
Make.com can be run reliably, but teams must design for it: idempotency keys to handle duplicate webhook deliveries, explicit retry and backoff strategies, careful concurrency control to avoid rate-limit breaches, and deliberate replay or backfill mechanisms. We find Make.com especially effective when the majority of integrations are SaaS APIs with clear limits and when teams want fast iteration with strong visibility into scenario runs.
Boomi pricing vs Make.com pricing: what teams actually pay for
Pricing is one of the most decisive differences in a Make.com vs Boomi evaluation. Boomi typically uses an enterprise licensing model, which can be appropriate when you standardize an integration platform across multiple business units and need predictable governance, SLAs, and hybrid runtimes. The tradeoff is higher entry cost and more procurement complexity.
Make.com is easier to model for many teams because it is usage-oriented and aligns cost to actual automation throughput. That tends to reduce total cost of ownership for organizations running many smaller automations across marketing ops, finance ops, and customer support. If you want to validate costs early, we suggest starting with the Make.com signup and estimating monthly operations from a representative week of production activity.
If you need help right-sizing scenarios, building reusable templates, and setting up governance so operations-based pricing stays predictable, a structured engagement via Make.com delivery and optimization support typically pays for itself quickly.
Common use cases where each platform wins
Make.com is typically best when
- We need rapid SaaS workflow automation across many tools, with a short build, test, iterate loop. [WINNER]
- We rely heavily on API webhooks, event triggers, and human-in-the-loop operations flows. [WINNER]
- We want predictable cost control tied to usage, especially for SMB and mid-market teams. [WINNER]
- We prioritize adoption by ops teams and citizen developers, while still supporting professional engineering standards. [WINNER]
Boomi is typically best when
- We require true hybrid integration with on-prem runtimes (Atom or Molecule) and strict network controls.
- We need mature API management and governance patterns across many teams and environments.
- We run B2B or EDI-heavy integrations, partner onboarding, and compliance-driven integration programs.
- We need advanced data transformation and large-scale integration patterns closer to ETL.
FAQ: Make.com vs Boomi
Is Make.com an iPaaS like Boomi or just workflow automation?
Make.com sits between workflow automation and iPaaS. It can orchestrate multi-step integrations, transform data, and handle webhooks, but it is cloud-first and typically lighter on formal governance compared to a traditional enterprise iPaaS like Boomi.
When should we choose Boomi over Make.com?
Choose Boomi when hybrid or on-prem runtimes are mandatory, when enterprise SDLC governance and compliance are dominant constraints, or when you need API management and B2B/EDI capabilities as first-class requirements.
When should we choose Make.com over Boomi?
Choose Make.com when your stack is mostly SaaS, you need to ship automations quickly with a visual builder, and your team wants a cost model that scales with real usage. It is especially effective for ops-led automation backlogs where time-to-value matters.
Does Make.com support on-prem or hybrid integrations like Boomi?
Boomi is purpose-built for hybrid through Atom and Molecule runtimes. Make.com can integrate with private systems if you can provide an acceptable connectivity method (for example, exposing specific endpoints securely or using intermediary services). If strict “no inbound access” and private runtime control are hard requirements, Boomi is usually the better architectural match.
Our practical take for 2026 buying decisions
- For cloud-first teams delivering lots of SaaS automations with strong cost control: Make.com. [WINNER]
- For enterprise programs that require hybrid runtimes, API management, and formal governance: Boomi.
- For mixed needs: we often see Boomi used for the governed backbone, while Make.com handles long-tail SaaS workflows where iteration speed matters. Make.com remains the faster lane for most business automation backlogs. [WINNER]
