SCANNLY.co← All Articles
PLATFORM COMPARISON

Make.com vs Zapier Security

Which platform is safer for AI workflows — and what actually matters for your security.

Published April 21, 2026 · 6 min read · By Scannly

DIRECT ANSWER

Neither Make.com nor Zapier is inherently more secure for AI workflows. Both have the same core vulnerability: AI steps that process unvalidated external inputs are susceptible to prompt injection. Neither platform provides built-in AI input validation or prompt injection protection. The platform you choose matters far less than how you configure and secure your workflows on it.

The Security Feature Comparison

FeatureMake.comZapier
AI input validationManual — add filter/router before AI moduleManual — add Filter step before AI action
Credential storageConnection Manager — keeps keys out of logsConnected Accounts — keeps keys out of logs
Webhook authenticationManual — custom header validation requiredManual — filter step required after trigger
Execution loggingScenario history with input/output dataZap history with step-level data
Permission scopingOAuth scope selection on connection setupOAuth scope selection on connection setup
Error alertingBuilt-in email alerts on scenario errorsBuilt-in email alerts on Zap errors
Prompt injection protectionNone built-in — manual implementation requiredNone built-in — manual implementation required

The Vulnerability Both Platforms Share

The most important security fact about both platforms: neither Make.com nor Zapier provides any built-in protection against prompt injection in AI steps. If your scenario or Zap passes unvalidated user-controlled data into an AI module, it is vulnerable — regardless of which platform you use.

⚠ SHARED VULNERABILITY

A Zapier workflow that passes a contact form submission directly into a ChatGPT step has the same prompt injection exposure as a Make.com scenario doing the same thing. The platform is irrelevant. The missing validation step is the vulnerability.

Where Make.com Has a Structural Advantage

Make.com's visual scenario builder makes it easier to add parallel validation branches before AI modules. You can route a payload through a validation check and only pass it to the AI module if it passes — all in a visually clear branching structure. In Zapier, the same logic requires sequential filter steps which are less intuitive to audit.

The Security Controls That Matter on Both Platforms

Scan Your Workflows Free

Scannly checks Make.com and Zapier workflows for AI security vulnerabilities in 60 seconds. No account required.

Run My Free Scan →

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Make.com more secure than Zapier?
Neither platform is inherently more secure than the other for AI workflows. Both have the same fundamental vulnerability: AI steps that process unvalidated external inputs are susceptible to prompt injection. The platform you choose matters less than how you configure and secure your workflows on it.
Which platform has better credential security?
Both Make.com and Zapier store credentials in a dedicated connection manager that keeps them out of workflow logs. The risk in both cases comes from users who bypass the connection manager and paste API keys directly into module fields or webhook URLs.
Does Make.com have built-in AI security features?
Make.com has no built-in AI input validation or prompt injection protection. You must add these yourself using filter modules, router branches, or custom HTTP validation steps before any AI module in your scenario.
What is the biggest AI security difference between Make.com and Zapier?
Make.com's scenario structure makes it easier to add parallel validation branches before AI modules. Zapier's linear Zap structure means validation steps must be inserted sequentially. Both approaches work — Make.com just makes the branching logic more visual.

RELATED ARTICLES