Skip to main content
AIDiveForge AIDiveForge

chromie.dev vs Make (Integromat)

Bottom line

chromie.dev is paid, while Make (Integromat) has a free plan plus paid upgrades.

Which one should you try?

chromie.dev

Paid

Best for Teams needing full execution auditability and compliance trails

Make (Integromat)

Freemium

Best for Teams automating repeatable work

Pricing, capabilities and platforms side by side. Prices are as of the "Pricing checked" date in the table.

chromie.dev

chromie.dev

Chromie layers deterministic tool calls on top of an AI agent so the agent reasons about what to do, but structured tools handle the execution — every field fill, every form submission, every DOM interaction. Each invocation is logged with inputs, outputs, latency, and task context, so your compliance team has a replay trail rather than an opaque model decision. Self-healing tools re-resolve broken selectors automatically using fallback chains, so a DOM drift on your payer portal doesn't require an emergency fix. The ceiling appears when you need custom tool logic outside what Chromie ships — teams extending into non-standard workflows have to build or integrate additional tooling themselves.

Make (Integromat)

Make (Integromat)

Make connects applications and data in visual automation workflows and AI agents.

Attributechromie.devMake (Integromat)
PricingPaidFreemium
Price—Free plan; paid pricing varies by credit allowance
Pricing checkedNot checked yetOct 18, 2026
Free trialNot statedNot stated
Open sourceNoNot stated
Has APINoYes
Self-hosted optionNoNot stated
PlatformsWeb-based SaaSWeb; documented API and MCP integrations
Pros
  • Deterministic tool calls replace pure model guessing at execution time, so a prior auth form fills the same way on run 1 and run 1,000 — which means the receipt mismatch failures that plague baseline agents stop appearing in production logs.
  • Full execution replay with inputs, outputs, latency, and task context logged per invocation, so compliance audits have a structured record instead of a reconstruction exercise after the fact.
  • Self-healing selector recovery via fallback chains resolves DOM drift automatically, so a payer portal update doesn't cascade into a Monday morning incident for your automation team.
  • Two-path integration model — build new workflows or layer deterministic tools onto existing automation — so teams don't have to discard working pipelines to get reliability guarantees.
  • Runtime skill selection routes the right tool to the right step based on task context, which means the agent isn't applying a form-fill tool to a classification step and producing garbage output.
  • Visual workflow builder
  • Broad connector and customization options
Cons
  • Custom tool requirements hit the platform ceiling fast: workflows needing logic or integrations outside Chromie's shipped skill set require building extensions, which means you're maintaining a custom layer before the automation is even fully deployed.
  • Pricing is gated behind a demo call with no public tier structure, so teams evaluating cost at scale — comparing per-run or per-seat economics against open-source browser automation stacks — cannot do that analysis without entering a sales process. Teams with strict procurement timelines or open-source mandates move to alternatives like browser-use or Playwright-based agent frameworks at this point.
  • Self-hosted deployment is not available, which means healthcare and pharma teams with data residency requirements or air-gapped infrastructure cannot run Chromie on their own stack — a hard stop for certain regulated environments regardless of how strong the audit trail is.
  • Credit use depends on scenario complexity
  • Advanced features can use additional credits

Made up your mind?

chromie.dev

Paid

Best for Teams needing full execution auditability and compliance trails

Make (Integromat)

Freemium

Best for Teams automating repeatable work

Specs come from each tool's own site and docs (how we test). AIDiveForge is editorially independent.

Share this comparison