Most companies do not need a Zapier consultant to build their first Zap — they need one because they have forty, half of them are broken, nobody knows which, and the bill keeps climbing. We audit what you have, repair what is worth keeping, delete what is not, and move workflows to Make or n8n when task pricing or logic complexity has made Zapier the wrong home for them.
Zapier is excellent at exactly what it is for: simple, low-volume, linear automation. The trouble starts when a business grows into it. Task counts climb into a pricing tier that stops making sense, workflows need branching that Zapier expresses awkwardly, and a Zap that broke in March goes unnoticed until June because nothing announced it. The tool did not fail — it was asked to do a job it was not built for.
An inventory of every Zap: what it does, whether it still runs, what it costs in tasks, and whether anyone would notice if it stopped.
Filters placed early, batched operations and consolidated Zaps — most accounts we audit are paying for a large volume of tasks that do nothing.
For branching logic, iterators and higher volume at materially lower cost than the equivalent in Zapier.
Rebuilding workflows on the right platform when volume or complexity has outgrown the original, without losing behaviour in the move.
Alerting so a broken automation raises a flag on the day it breaks rather than at the next quarterly review.
We list every Zap and scenario, when each last ran successfully, and what it costs. This alone usually surprises people.
Dead Zaps get archived and task-hungry ones get filters moved upstream, which often pays for the engagement on its own.
Simple and low-volume stays on Zapier. Branching moves to Make. High-volume or code-dependent moves to n8n.
Whatever platform it lands on, failures produce an alert with enough context to fix them.
Working versions of the patterns above, ready to import into your own n8n instance.
It depends on which constraint you have hit. If the problem is cost at volume, Make is materially cheaper per operation and n8n does not meter tasks at all. If the problem is logic — real branching, loops, custom code — Make handles it better and n8n handles it completely. If neither applies, stay on Zapier; it is the easiest to maintain and switching has a real cost in time and risk.
Usually one of four causes: a third-party API changed its response shape, an authentication token expired, a field was renamed in the source system, or a plan limit was quietly hit. None of these announce themselves. The fix is less about the individual Zap than about attaching monitoring, so the next breakage surfaces the day it happens instead of at the next audit.
Often, yes. The most common win is filter placement — a filter after a multi-step trigger has already consumed the tasks it was meant to save. Moving conditions upstream, consolidating overlapping Zaps and archiving dead ones typically cuts a meaningful share of task consumption without changing any behaviour you rely on.
We map your biggest manual bottleneck and show you what we would automate. No pitch — and if automation is not the answer, we will say so.
Book the call