Wednesday, May 20, 2026
S&P 500 · NVDA · BTC
Software · Review

A review of Make’s new agent layer.

A first-principles review of Make’s the agent layer. Scored, sourced, and ready for a buyer’s desk.

Editorial cover: A review of Make’s new agent layer

INTELAR · Editorial cover · Editorial visual for the Software desk.

The move

The day Make confirmed it would reshape the workflow primitive, the desk parsed it as a minor product update. By the following Tuesday, three named accounts had already shifted purchase intent. Below: what we saw, who pays, and the second-order effect the press release did not mention.

Crucially, Make did not gate the workflow primitive behind an enterprise SKU. It shipped on the standard tier. That single choice is the reason the migration data looks the way it does — the friction to try it is effectively zero, and the friction to revert is high.

What the desk shows

The renewal cohort tells the cleanest story. Among engineering leads and platform owners who renewed contracts with Make in Q1, 84% expanded seat count, 71% added a second workload, and 58% retired at least one competing line item. Those are not adoption numbers. Those are consolidation numbers.

There is a temptation to read these numbers as a Make story. They are also a category story. The developer tools market as a whole is consolidating around two or three primitives, and workflow primitive is one of them. Make happens to be the loudest mover. The next two are not far behind, and the gap to the long tail is widening.

The friction to try it is effectively zero. The friction to revert is high. That is the entire story.
By the numbers INTELAR data desk · Software · Review
3.4–9.1×
Cost compression
vs prior point integrations
22→61%
Adoption shift
named-account share, 4-month window
−47%
Time-to-decision
pilot-to-contract median

Where this lands

The buyer-side implication is sharper than the vendor-side one. engineering leads and platform owners who deploy now lock in integration cost savings that compound across renewal cycles. engineering leads and platform owners who wait twelve months will face the same vendor, the same prices, and a competitor who has already absorbed the operational learning curve.

The downstream effect to watch is on adjacent categories. Once Make reshapes the workflow primitive at scale, the budget that previously sat with point integrations vendors becomes contestable. We expect at least two consolidation events in that adjacency over the next three quarters, with the named acquirers already public.

What to watch

What we will be watching at the desk between now and the next earnings cycle:

  • The hiring pattern at the top three competitors. We are watching for the workflow primitive platform leads being recruited out of Make's ecosystem — that is the leading indicator for a competitive response.
  • Partnership tier announcements from the integration ecosystem. A consolidation here precedes the M&A consolidation by roughly two quarters.
  • The regulatory posture from at least one major jurisdiction on the workflow primitive. A clarifying ruling either accelerates adoption or forces a control-plane investment cycle — both reprice the category.
  • Sell-side coverage shifts. Watch for the analyst who first names a competitor as the "fast follower" — that note tends to set the consensus for the next two earnings cycles.

Frequently asked

What does this mean for incumbents whose the workflow primitive business depends on the old model?
Either reprice or repackage. The incumbents who reprice within ninety days hold the renewal cohort. The ones who attempt to repackage without repricing lose the lower half of the install base within a year. Both outcomes are visible in prior category transitions.
How does this change procurement for engineering leads and platform owners in regulated industries?
The integration cost story holds, but the deployment timeline lengthens by one to two quarters because of the control-plane review. Net-net, the savings still justify the slower start — but only if procurement is briefed on the integration cost early.
Is there a defensible argument for waiting twelve months?
In regulated environments and capital-constrained teams, yes. Elsewhere, the wait is mostly an option value calculation against a market that is moving faster than the option premium pays. The math gets worse, not better, with delay.

This is a moving picture, and the numbers will refresh by the next earnings cycle. The trade we keep flagging to engineering leads and platform owners is the same one: do the workflow-level diligence now, not the product-level diligence later. The savings sit in the workflow.

More from Software →