You will build one simple automation in two different tools and compare them on your own experience.
Mei Ling built the same small flow in Zapier and in Make, timed both builds, and wrote half a page on which one they would rather keep using. You're going to do the same with two tools of your own, then choose one for the rest of the course.
Reading about tools only gets you so far. Two people can read the same comparison and come away preferring different tools, because what matters is how a tool feels in use when something does not work. The quickest way to find out is to build the same small flow twice and see which tool you would rather come back to. The flow is kept deliberately small so you are testing the tools and not your patience.
The flow has one trigger and two actions. It starts when someone submits a new response on a simple form with three fields: name, email and a short message. The first action adds that response as a new row in a spreadsheet. The second sends you a notification, by email or in a chat app you use, that names the person who responded.
Create the form and the sheet first, outside either tool. Give the sheet one header row with five columns: response ID, timestamp, name, email, message. Both tools will connect to this same form and this same sheet, so the only thing that changes between the two builds is the tool.
For the tools, pick two of Zapier, Make and n8n, or one of those plus a built-in option you found in Lesson 3.2, "Use the automation you already pay for". Sign up for free plans. Free plans change, and some tools offer a trial or a self-hosted edition in place of a free hosted plan, so read the current terms on each tool's own site. If a free plan does not allow enough steps for this flow, build the trigger and the sheet step and note the limit in your comparison.
Before you connect anything, go through the list from Lesson 3.3, "What a tool can see once you connect your accounts". Use a personal test form and sheet, not a work account or real customer data.
Start a timer when you open the first tool. Build the flow: the form trigger, the step that adds a row to the sheet, and the notification naming the responder. Use what you learned in module 2 to map response ID and timestamp into their own columns, and set the time zone to Singapore time. Test with a realistic sample response. Stop the timer when the test response appears correctly in the sheet and the notification arrives.
All the way through, keep a running note of every point where you get stuck: a setting you could not find, an error you did not understand, a field that did not appear in the picker. Next to each one, write how you solved it, whether through the help pages, a search, or trial and error. These notes are more useful than the times, because they show what living with the tool will be like.
Then repeat the same process in the second tool, with a fresh timer and a fresh set of notes. When both flows work, check the timestamp in the sheet against your clock to confirm the time zone is right.
Submit two or three more test responses so each tool has a few runs on record. Then open each tool's run history, its record of each run with the data in and out of each step. Depending on the tool it may be called history, executions or task log. Most people skip this step.
For each tool, check whether every run is visible with the data going into and coming out of each step. Then try to find a particular run, for example by searching for a name, and note how easy that is.
Next, break something on purpose. Rename the "name" column in the sheet and submit another response. Watch how each tool shows the failure. Note whether it says which step failed and why, and whether it alerts you or leaves you to go looking. Write down what you see, then change the column name back.
You'll rely heavily on run history in module 7, where you build error alerts and logs. A tool that hides its errors costs you more time than one that is slower to build in.
Mei Ling's comparison shows the length and tone to aim for. Their times and impressions are their own, invented for this example, so don't expect yours to match. Their Zapier build took about 20 minutes. The step list was easy to follow, and the only snag was finding where to set the time zone. Their Make build took about 35 minutes, and they lost ten minutes working out how the sheet module wanted the columns mapped. Once it was working, the canvas made the flow easy to see.
When they renamed the column, both runs failed, and both histories showed which step had broken. They found the problem faster in Make because it was visible on the canvas, but they had to open the tool to notice it at all. Their real enquiry flow branches by level, and the branches were clearer on Make's canvas. They chose Make, and plan to add an error email in module 7 so they don't have to go looking.
Base your own choice on your flow and your experience of the two builds rather than on which tool is more popular. You're done when you have all of these:
the same flow running in two tools each tool tested with at least three responses a half-page comparison covering build time, stuck points, and how each tool shows run history and errors a final sentence in the comparison naming the tool you chose and the reason
Once you've chosen a tool, switch off both test flows so they don't run on forgotten.
Set up your form and sheet first, then open the first tool and start the timer.
Build the form-to-sheet-to-notification flow in two tools on their free plans and write a half-page comparison ending in your choice.
Junxiong-WFG Organisation is an authorised representative of AIA Financial Advisers Private Limited (Reg. No. 201715016G).