Make makes you build the automation; Fasrad is the worker on the other end — tell it what you want and it reads the inbox and acts.
Instead of dragging modules onto a canvas, you tell an agent what you want and it builds the triggers, reads the inbox, and decides what to do next.
A Make scenario is a flow chart. Every branch is a module you place, every condition is a filter you configure, every "what if the email doesn't have an attachment" is a router you add by hand. It runs exactly the path you drew and nothing else. The moment a vendor sends an invoice in a layout you didn't anticipate, the scenario either errors out or routes it to the wrong place, and you're back in the editor.
Fasrad starts from the other end. You don't draw the path — you describe the outcome. "Watch this inbox, pull the total and due date off any invoice, log it to my Sheet, and flag anything over €2,000 to me on Telegram." The agent reads the email, understands a PDF whether it's from Stripe or a one-off supplier, and decides. There's no router for the unexpected case because the agent reads the unexpected case the way a person would.
Where each one fits:
If your problem is "move structured data from A to B reliably," Make is the right tool and we'll say so. If your problem is "someone has to read this, judge it, and respond," that's a person's job — or Fasrad's.
These pages cover the adjacent jobs buyers usually compare before choosing an AI agent.
No — and that's an honest gap. Make's library of pre-built connectors for niche SaaS is genuinely deeper. Fasrad covers Gmail, Google Calendar, Sheets and Drive natively, and reaches anything else through its API tool by calling REST endpoints with custom auth. If your stack lives entirely in obscure apps that Make has one-click modules for, Make may be less setup. If your work is reading and writing email, documents, and a database, Fasrad does it directly.
No. Make executes a path you designed in advance; it does not interpret content. Fasrad reads each email, PDF, or webpage and chooses what to do, so it handles inputs you never anticipated. It also holds state — CRM, datastores, memory — which a stateless scenario doesn't.
When the logic is fixed, the volume is high, and no judgment is needed. Syncing thousands of rows between databases on a schedule, mirroring records across two SaaS tools, fan-out webhooks — Make is faster, cheaper at that scale, and more predictable. Use it for plumbing. Use Fasrad for the steps that require reading or deciding.
You usually don't port it one-to-one. You describe the outcome the scenario was meant to produce and let the agent set up the trigger and steps. The reading-and-deciding modules you stacked up in Make collapse into a single instruction. The pure data-sync legs are often worth leaving in Make and letting Fasrad handle the judgment parts.
Yes. Tell it "every weekday at 7am, check the inbox for new bookings and update the Sheet" and it creates a cron task. It also fires on events — a new email, a new lead from your embedded chat widget — and can proactively check in without any prompt at all.
$49/month or $490/year — cancel anytime Setup runs about four minutes — you describe what the agent should do and it's working. It's in public beta.