Skip the scenario builder.
Just say what you need done
Instead of learning modules, filters, and routers, write the task the way you'd tell a person. AI builds the steps, and you review them before they run.
Cheap, but the learning is on you
Make gives you fine-grained control over scenarios. Which means modules, filters, routers, and error handling are yours to learn — the reason building one automation starts with watching a tutorial.
And Make is API-based too, so for sites missing from the integration list there is no scenario to build at all. Xeona works the site directly, so that wall isn't there.
How they differ
| Make | Xeona | |
|---|---|---|
| How you build | Assemble scenarios from modules and routers | Describe the task; AI builds the steps |
| What you must learn | The builder and its error handling | Nothing — if you can explain the task, you can build it |
| Sites without integrations | Not possible | Works on any site with a screen |
| Checking runs | Scenario logs | Step-by-step review + Telegram reports |
| Screen-based back offices | Official SaaS integrations only | Seller consoles, blogs, admin panels — screen work included |
How Xeona does it
Say it in one line
"Cross-check the order form against bank deposits" — scenario design is the AI's job.
It works the site directly
It opens the site and checks and enters data like a person. Steps are reviewable before running.
You get a report
Results arrive on Telegram, and you reply to give follow-up instructions.
Three minutes to hand off your first task.
Start freeJust type it like this
When the work is done, you get a report
Frequently asked questions
Isn't Make cheaper?
On tool price alone, it can be. Xeona charges credits per run — but once you count the hours you spend building and fixing scenarios, the math changes.
What about tasks with detailed branching?
Put the conditions in the instruction: "for reviews under 3 stars, draft only and show me first". The generated steps are reviewable and editable before running.