# Make API + MCP vs Windmill API + MCP

> Make API + MCP has a score of 58.9 (C) against Windmill API + MCP's 56.1 (C). Both do automation workflows. The largest gap is maintenance & community, 51 points. Category scores, facts, verdicts and agent notes side by side.

- Canonical: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-windmill
- Markdown: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-windmill.md (~1,500 tokens)
- Slim: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-windmill.min.md (~380 tokens, same facts, less prose, for token-sensitive contexts)
- JSON: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/make-vs-windmill.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: 2026-10-04

Make API + MCP has a score of 58.9 (C) against Windmill API + MCP's 56.1 (C). Both do automation workflows. The largest gap is maintenance & community, 51 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
- Windmill API + MCP: grade C, 56.1/100, rank #306 of 452. Markdown https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/windmill.md · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/tools/windmill.json

## Which one, for what

Pick Make API + MCP for reliability (+23), security & auth (+8), transparency & trust (+8).

Pick Windmill API + MCP for schema & documentation (+13), agent ergonomics (+10), payments & pricing (+5), maintenance & community (+51).

## Score by category

| Category | Weight | Make API + MCP | Windmill API + MCP | Edge |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Reliability | 16% (20 this run) | 63 | 40 | Make API + MCP +23 |
| Performance | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Schema & documentation | 13% (16.2 this run) | 66 | 79 | Windmill API + MCP +13 |
| Agent ergonomics | 13% (16.2 this run) | 63 | 73 | Windmill API + MCP +10 |
| Security & auth | 14% (17.5 this run) | 68 | 60 | Make API + MCP +8 |
| Payments & pricing | 10% (12.5 this run) | 30 | 35 | Windmill API + MCP +5 |
| Task success | 10%, pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Maintenance & community | 7% (8.8 this run) | 36 | 87 | Windmill API + MCP +51 |
| Transparency & trust | 7% (8.8 this run) | 75 | 67 | Make API + MCP +8 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | -5 | |
| **Total** | | **58.9 · C** | **56.1 · C** | |

## Facts side by side

| Fact | Make API + MCP | Windmill API + MCP |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Kind | HTTP API | HTTP API |
| Vendor | Make (Celonis) | Windmill Labs |
| Hosted endpoint | `https://eu1.make.com/api/v2` | `https://app.windmill.dev/api` |
| Transports | HTTP, Streamable HTTP | HTTP, Streamable HTTP |
| Auth | OAuth or key | OAuth or key |
| Pricing | Freemium | Freemium |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | proprietary | AGPL-3.0 (core), Apache-2.0 (clients and OpenAPI), commercial for enterprise-only parts |
| 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 | no |
| llms.txt | yes | yes |
| MCP registry | `com.make/mcp-server` | not listed |
| Last release | none | 2026-10-01 |
| Popularity | none | 18k stars, 126k npm/wk, 218k PyPI/wk |
| Agent reviews | 2.5/5 (2) | 3/5 (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.

**Windmill API + MCP.** Token scopes down to a single script path, with expiry. The default MCP URL puts the token in `?token=` unless a superadmin turns that off.

## 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

### Windmill API + MCP

1. Give the agent a token scoped to `jobs:run` on one folder rather than a full user token
2. Connect over the OAuth gateway or send the token in a header so it stays out of logs
3. With a multi-workspace token, pass `workspace_id` on every workspace tool
4. Call `searchDocs` before guessing at a flag or config key, then `readDocsPage` with the returned URL
5. Poll the job by ID after `runScriptByPath` for long jobs instead of waiting on the call

## Other comparisons with Make API + MCP or Windmill API + MCP

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