# Make API + MCP vs Paragon ActionKit + MCP

> Make API + MCP has a score of 58.9 (C) against Paragon ActionKit + MCP's 47.8 (D). Both do automation workflows. The largest gap is payments & pricing, 30 points. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side.

- Canonical: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-paragon
- Markdown: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-paragon.md (~1,450 tokens)
- Slim: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-paragon.min.md (~330 tokens, same facts, less prose, for token-sensitive contexts)
- JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-paragon.json (this page as data, same URL with Accept: application/json)
- Site index for agents: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt (full text: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms-full.txt)
- API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json
- Updated: 2026-10-05

Make API + MCP has a score of 58.9 (C) against Paragon ActionKit + MCP's 47.8 (D). Both do automation workflows. The largest gap is payments & pricing, 30 points.

- Make API + MCP: grade C, 58.9/100, rank #274 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/make.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/make.json
- Paragon ActionKit + MCP: grade D, 47.8/100, rank #381 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/paragon.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/paragon.json

## Which one, for what

Pick Make API + MCP for agent ergonomics (+22), payments & pricing (+30), transparency & trust (+10).

Pick Paragon ActionKit + MCP for schema & documentation (+7), maintenance & community (+12).

## Score by category

| Category | Weight | Make API + MCP | Paragon ActionKit + MCP | Edge |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability | 16% (20 this run) | 63 | 60 | Make API + MCP +3 |
| Performance | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13% (16.2 this run) | 66 | 73 | Paragon ActionKit + MCP +7 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13% (16.2 this run) | 63 | 41 | Make API + MCP +22 |
| Security & auth | 14% (17.5 this run) | 68 | 65 | Make API + MCP +3 |
| Payments & pricing | 10% (12.5 this run) | 30 | 0 | Make API + MCP +30 |
| Task success | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7% (8.8 this run) | 36 | 48 | Paragon ActionKit + MCP +12 |
| Transparency & trust | 7% (8.8 this run) | 75 | 65 | Make API + MCP +10 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | -4 | |
| **Total** | | **58.9 · C** | **47.8 · D** | |

## Facts side by side

| Fact | Make API + MCP | Paragon ActionKit + MCP |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Make (Celonis) | Paragon |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://eu1.make.com/api/v2` | `https://actionkit.useparagon.com` |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | HTTP, Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Paid |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | proprietary | proprietary |
| Tools exposed | none | none |
| Context cost (tools/list) | n/a | n/a |
| p95 latency | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Availability (30d) | not measured yet | not measured yet |
| Read-only variant documented | no | yes |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| MCP registry | `com.make/mcp-server` | not listed |
| Last release | none | 2026-09-23 |
| Popularity | none | 48 stars, 175k npm/wk |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (2) | 2/5 (2) |

## Verdicts

**Make API + MCP.** Hosted MCP server with OAuth, and scenario run tools on the free plan. No published OpenAPI file and no official SDK.

**Paragon ActionKit + MCP.** Per-end-user RS256 JWT on every call, with a hosted Connect Portal for OAuth. No published prices and no self-serve paid plan.

## Before you call either

### Make API + MCP

1. Find the organisation's zone first. It may be on make.com or make.celonis.com
2. Set scenarios to on-demand scheduling so the MCP server lists them as tools
3. Use the header form of the MCP token rather than the /mcp/u/<token> path form
4. On a 429, wait a full minute. The limit resets per minute and no Retry-After is sent
5. Check the `code` field on errors. IM002 means the token lacks rights, not that the resource is missing

### Paragon ActionKit + MCP

1. Sign a short-lived User Token per end user on your server and never let the model see the signing key
2. Set `NODE_ENV=production` before exposing the MCP server anywhere but localhost
3. Fetch the tool list once per session with `categories` set, and cache it
4. Set `LIMIT_TO_TOOLS` on the MCP server to keep write actions out of a read-only agent
5. Proxy API requests count as tasks, so prefer ActionKit tools for routine actions

## Other comparisons with Make API + MCP or Paragon ActionKit + MCP

- [Activepieces API + MCP vs Make API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/activepieces-vs-make.md)
- [Activepieces API + MCP vs Paragon ActionKit + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/activepieces-vs-paragon.md)
- [Make API + MCP vs n8n API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-n8n.md)
- [Make API + MCP vs Pipedream API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-pipedream.md)
- [Make API + MCP vs Tray.ai API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-tray.md)
- [Make API + MCP vs Windmill API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-windmill.md)
- [Make API + MCP vs Workato API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-workato.md)
- [n8n API + MCP vs Paragon ActionKit + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/n8n-vs-paragon.md)
- [Paragon ActionKit + MCP vs Pipedream API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/paragon-vs-pipedream.md)
- [Paragon ActionKit + MCP vs Tray.ai API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/paragon-vs-tray.md)
- [Paragon ActionKit + MCP vs Windmill API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/paragon-vs-windmill.md)
- [Paragon ActionKit + MCP vs Workato API + MCP](https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/paragon-vs-workato.md)