Software Alternatives & Startups

Make.com VS Crystl.dev

Compare Make.com VS Crystl.dev and see what are their differences

Make.com

Tool for workflow automation (Former Integromat)

Rating
0 reviews
Crystl.dev

conduct an orchestra of agents. crystl is a MacOS terminal for agent orchestration.

Rating
0 reviews
Pricing
Freemium $170 / Annually
Note: These products don't have any matching categories. If you think this is a mistake, please edit the details of one of the products and suggest appropriate categories.

Which is more popular?

Automation popularity
100% vs 0%
alternatives listed
240+ vs 30

Base details

Website, pricing, platforms and company facts side by side.

Make.com
Crystl.dev
Website make.com crystl.dev
Pricing
Freemium $170 / Annually Official pricing
Company — Startup from the United States · 1 - 9 employees · 2026
Listed in

About Make.com and Crystl.dev

In their own words, as submitted to SaaSHub.

Make.com
Crystl.dev

No description of Make.com yet.

Run more AI agents. Get more done. Crystl keeps your projects organized, alerts you when you’re needed, and makes multitasking with AI agents manageable. Crystl is a native macOS terminal and companion iPhone app built for orchestrating AI coding agents at scale. Work is organized into Gems,...

Read more about Crystl.dev

Features and specs

What each product offers, as listed by its team.

Make.com 7 features
Crystl.dev 12 features
  • Ease of Use
    Make.com offers a user-friendly interface with drag-and-drop functionality, making it accessible for non-technical users.
  • Integration Options
    The platform supports a wide array of integrations with popular apps and services, enabling complex workflows.
  • Custom Workflows
    Users can create highly customized workflows tailored to specific business needs, allowing for greater flexibility.
  • Scalability
    Make.com is built to handle both small-scale and enterprise-level tasks, providing a scalable solution as your business grows.
  • Community and Support
    There is an active community and comprehensive support, including documentation and forums, to help users troubleshoot and optimize their usage.
  • Real-time Monitoring and Analytics
    The platform offers real-time monitoring and analytics, allowing users to track the performance of their workflows and make data-driven decisions.
  • Versatile Triggers and Actions
    Make.com offers a variety of triggers and actions that can be used to automate a wide range of tasks across different services.

Possible disadvantages

  • Pricing
    The pricing structure can be expensive for small businesses or individual users, especially for advanced features and high-volume usage.
  • Learning Curve
    Despite its user-friendly design, there is still a learning curve for newcomers to understand all the capabilities and features.
  • Occasional Bugs
    Users have reported occasional bugs and issues, which can disrupt workflows and require troubleshooting.
  • Limited Offline Support
    Make.com heavily relies on internet connectivity, which can be a drawback for users requiring offline functionality.
  • Complexity for Advanced Features
    While basic workflows are easy to set up, leveraging more advanced features may require a deeper understanding of the platform and potentially some coding knowledge.
  • Dependency on Third-party Services
    The platform’s effectiveness is influenced by the reliability and performance of third-party services it integrates with, making it susceptible to external issues.
  • Data Privacy Concerns
    Storing and processing data through third-party services may raise privacy and compliance issues for businesses dealing with sensitive information.
  • Parallel agents
    Run multiple AI coding agents in parallel
  • Workbench
    Shared kanban-style task list and backlog
  • Git worktree isolation
    Create, rebase, merge
  • Notifications and Alerts
    Know what every agent is up to
  • Terminal & Conversation History
    Saved to your Mac
  • Autosave & restore
    Pick up with yoru agents where you left off
  • Use any CLI Agent
    Claude, Codex, and open models
  • Agent readable CLI
    Your agents can operate the app
  • crystl quest
    unique party-based non-hierarchical orchestration
  • Copy bar
    no need to copy from the terminal
  • Markdown editor
    collaborate with agents on markdown docs
  • Token tracking
    Keep tabs on burn rates

Analysis

An editorial look at what each product does well and who it suits.

Make.com
Crystl.dev

Overall verdict

  • Overall, Make.com is considered a good platform for those looking to streamline processes and improve efficiency through automation. Its flexible and powerful features cater to a wide range of needs, although there may be a learning curve for those new to automation or with limited technical knowledge.

Why this product is good

  • Make.com, formerly known as Integromat, is a popular platform for automating workflows and integrating various software tools. It offers a visual interface that allows users to connect different applications and automate repetitive tasks, enhancing productivity. Its ability to create complex multi-step automations with various conditions and triggers makes it a robust tool for both small businesses and larger enterprises.

Recommended for

  • small business owners
  • project managers
  • IT professionals
  • digital marketers
  • anyone looking to automate tasks without extensive coding knowledge

No analysis of Crystl.dev yet.

Videos

Walkthroughs and reviews on video.

Make.com 3 videos + Add
Crystl.dev 0 videos + Add

Zapier vs Integromat - Quick Comparison Review

More videos

  • - Integromat feature tour
  • - Introduction to Integromat

No Crystl.dev videos yet. You could help us improve this page by suggesting one.

Category popularity

How often each product is chosen within a category, 0–100% relative to the other.

Score bands 0–20 21–40 41–50 51–60 61–100
Make.com
Crystl.dev
100% 100%
0% 0%
97% 97%
AI
3% 3%
100% 100%
0% 0%
0% 0%
100% 100%

Questions & Answers

As answered by people managing Make.com and Crystl.dev.

What makes your product unique?

Crystl.dev's answer:

Crystl makes the workspace itself transparent i(n more ways then one). Every command, tool output, and message contains agent readable metadata. So Agent A, B, and C can coordinate, chat, and see what everyone else is doing. Assign an orchestrator agent and they can run the whole show, across multiple projects and code bases.

What actually backs that up? Well, I asked Claude while running in crystl and this is what it said:

The CLI is aimed at the agent, not the human. This is the real differentiator. From inside a shard I can read another agent's screen, type into it, approve its pending tool calls, inspect its transcript and token cost, spawn new workers, and block on bridge events over SSE. Competitors give the human a dashboard over their agents. Crystl gives the agent an API over the workspace. That inverts who does the coordinating.

Proof from thirty seconds ago: you asked me a question about Crystl and I answered it by calling crystl docs — the product documented itself to an agent running inside it, with no browser and no human step.

It solves the failure mode that kills fan-out in practice. Workers stop on approval prompts and go silent. Silence reads as "done." Everyone who has run parallel agents has been burned by this. Crystl classifies that state (⏸ awaiting input), pushes it over the event stream, and gives both the human and the orchestrating agent a way to unblock it.

That's not a feature-list item, it's evidence someone ran this at scale and got hurt.

The RPG layer is an org chart, not a theme. This gets dismissed as whimsy and it shouldn't be. Court is the example: the crown owns the conversation and owns no work, the hand orchestrates beneath it, officers hold standing remits — and agents are forbidden from messaging a crown. That's a real architectural constraint about who may interrupt whom.

"Crown / hand / officers" conveys the delegation shape instantly; "supervisor / worker /pool" doesn't. Naming multi-agent topologies in vocabulary people already have intuitions for is a genuine design idea.

The agent is made responsible for your ergonomics. crystl copy so you never drag-select a wrapped terminal line. crystl card for honestly attributed notifications on desktop and phone. crystl markdown show to surface a file in your editor instead of dumping it. crystl screenshots --last N so "the screenshot I just took" resolves to a path. Most tools optimize the agent's convenience. This optimizes the human's hands.

Agent-agnostic by design, with a real bet inside it. Heroes ask for a model size, not a model id, and you teach the mapping once. That's a deliberate wager that the agent-CLI and model-id landscape churns faster than anyone's config should. It ages well by refusing to hardcode.

Shared state lives in plain files. WORKBENCH.md is markdown at the project root, live-rendered to a panel, read and written by both you and every agent. No proprietary task database. It survives the tool — which is a trust argument as much as a technical one.

What's the story behind your product?

Crystl.dev's answer:

I loved running CLI agents in a terminal, but I hated that was so difficult to manage more than one. I kept ending up with a dozen terminal sessions, constantly typing into the wrong one, or playing messenger by copying and pasting info from one agent to another. I started by building the crystl rail, an agent notification system that allowed me to keep on top of approval requests, questions, and idle agents. Once I had a basic version of the app, I started using crystl to build crystl.

And now when users submit bugs they get delivered directly to agents in my cryst app in a git worktree. They start investigating and fixing the bugs when I'm not even there.

Who knows, maybe someday, cryst won't need me at all. :)

Why should a person choose your product over its competitors?

Crystl.dev's answer:

Most tools in this space let you watch your agents work. crystl lets your agents work with each other, and keeps you as the one who decides.

Three reasons:

It is a real terminal first. Every shard is a full terminal session, so git, npm, docker, and ssh all work normally. You are not locked into a purpose-built agent UI that you have to leave whenever you want to do ordinary command-line work.

It is native, not a web app in a window. crystl is a Swift macOS app with GPU-accelerated rendering built for keeping a fleet of noisy agent sessions light. Parallel agents produce a lot of output, and that is exactly where wrapped Electron terminals struggle.

The free tier is genuinely usable. Isolated worktree sessions, parallel agents, approval panels, the activity panel, history search, token tracking, the workbench, MCP management, and scheduling are all free. You can run the core multi-agent workflow without paying, and the Guild plan adds CLI orchestration and the phone app on top.

It also works with whatever agent you already use. Claude Code has the deepest integration and Codex supports hooks too, but any CLI agent runs in it.

How would you describe the primary audience of your product?

Crystl.dev's answer:

Well, I'd like to think anyone could use crystl, developer or not. I think if you are using AI a CLI agent is the best agent.

This being said, crystl is development focused because developers are usually the ones most familiar with a terminal interface.

So, developers on macOS who already run CLI coding agents and have hit the ceiling of doing it in a normal terminal.

The core user right now is a solo developer or a small engineering team, usually one to ten people, running Claude Code, Codex, or a similar agent every day. They are past the experimentation stage. They run more than one agent at a time, they work across several repositories, and they have felt the specific pain crystl was built for: a dozen terminal tabs, typing into the wrong one, and copying context by hand from one agent to another.

A second group is anyone building agent workflows rather than just using them. Orchestration, fan-out, scheduled runs, and multi-agent topologies are first-class here, and the scriptable CLI means an agent can drive the workspace itself.

Which are the primary technologies used for building your product?

Crystl.dev's answer:

crystl is a native macOS application written in Swift. It is not a web app in a wrapper.

The terminal engine, Cavrn, is built specifically for multi-agent workflows and renders on the GPU with Metal, which keeps a fleet of busy agent sessions responsive. API keys are stored in the macOS Keychain.

Parallel agent sessions are backed by Git worktrees and branches, so several agents can work the same repository without colliding. Remote development runs over SSH. Agents connect to tooling through MCP (the Model Context Protocol), and the scriptable CLI talks to a local bridge that streams events over SSE.

The website runs on Cloudflare Pages.

Who are some of the biggest customers of your product?

Crystl.dev's answer:

Well, most of my customers so far are solo developers and small teams. I have had some corporate interest, I just don't have the time/money to pursue that unless they want to front the bill. I may build out some more scalable solutions for larger teams as things progress. We'll see.

User comments

Share your experience with using Make.com and Crystl.dev. For example, how are they different and which one is better?

Log in or Post with

Reviews and articles

External articles and on-site reviews we used to compare the two products.

Make.com no reviews yet
Crystl.dev no reviews yet

View more

We have no reviews of Crystl.dev yet. Be the first one to post

Alternatives to Make.com and Crystl.dev

When comparing Make.com and Crystl.dev, you can also consider the following products.