Prismatic offers an Embedded Integration-Platform-as-a-Service (iPaaS) featuring a low-code integration designer, an integrated integration marketplace, and comprehensive built-in logging and authentication management.

The platform was specifically designed with the embedded and dev-first components in mind, which is a good approach if you’re looking for a native and deep experience for your native integrations. 

Key advantages include the capability to develop custom components and an embeddable integration marketplace, which is particularly beneficial for companies lacking pre-existing integrations. This can give early-stage companies a good first step to their integration journey.

However, Prismatic faces significant challenges in supporting rapidly expanding businesses. You will bump into a non-customizable experience if opting out of their embedded integrations page first. There is also a limited capacity for managing high execution volumes paired with a pricing structure that does not scale effectively. 

The biggest trade-off is its complexity. Users also often struggle with it, encountering a steep learning curve that can be challenging, especially for those with limited technical background. Let’s dive deeper into their pros & cons below:

## Strengths of Prismatic

1. **Custom Component Creation**: Developers can create custom components, allowing for seamless integration with any third-party HTTP service. It is not 100% there and you still need to implement a lot of the mappings & logic yourself.
2. **Customizable Integration Instances**: Prismatic enables the setup of unique integration instances for specific end-users. This is achieved by configuring variables and connections to third-party apps tailored to each customer's needs, offering a personalized integration experience.
3. **Advanced Logging Tools**: The platform provides comprehensive logging tools that cover all integrations built on Prismatic. These logs can be streamed to external logging systems, ensuring thorough monitoring and troubleshooting capabilities.

## Weaknesses of Prismatic

1. **Confusing User Interface for Integration Configuration**: The process of configuring integrations in Prismatic can be perplexing. The UI design does not facilitate an intuitive or straightforward experience for end-users.
2. **Limited Options for Enabling Integrations**:
    - **Embedded Integration Marketplace**: Users are compelled to use Prismatic's pre-built, full-page embedded integration marketplace. This can be restrictive, especially for those who already have existing integrations, as it necessitates managing other integrations separately within their application.
    - **Mandatory Prismatic Account for Self-Service**: Providing customers with a self-serve Prismatic account forces them to log into Prismatic for integration configuration. This approach is not as user-friendly and can lead to a poor customer experience for you.
3. **Documentation Issues**: The documentation provided by Prismatic, particularly regarding the configuration and management of integrations, contributes to the challenges faced by current users.

## **The best Prismatic alternative**

Prismatic is more of a typical embedded IpaaS, so you’ll be building integrations one by one. It could be a good tool for you if you had different use cases or customization per integration in a category, but you can do that with us too if you need to. So in simple terms, building integrations with say 5 CRMs will be much slower with them. With us, you build one flow, and you’re live with a use case with multiple apps immediately. Much faster. Other reasons to consider **Integration.app**: 

- Fastest connector building in the market, so you’ll be able to serve and cover new integrations (outside of CRMs, GSuite ) after using us initially with much more peace of mind. I think our progress in the last few months speaks for itself as you’ve seen.
- Very high-touch support (pair programming, personalized guides). A lot of customers choose us because of that. [You can read it in G2 reviews](https://www.g2.com/products/integration-app/reviews)

## Comparing the benefits of Prismatic alternatives

## [Integration.app vs Prismatic.io](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/prismatic-alternatives)

Integration.app is a dev-friendly platform that offers a curated selection of components, ensuring reliability and functionality. With an intuitive interface and straightforward workflow designs, the platform aims to simplify the user experience and potentially lower the learning curve for new users. 

The platform provides extensive documentation, including [step-by-step guides](https://console.integration.app/docs/getting-started), video tutorials, and [real-world examples](https://integration.app/articles/case-studies).  The platform addresses UI/UX limitations with its design-first approach, which enhances the overall user experience and reduces frustration. Integration.app encourages user interaction and direct access to technical support, fostering a sense of community and providing users with the resources they need to solve problems quickly. 

Finally, the platform allows for increased [customization options](https://console.integration.app/docs/ui/flows/custom) and flexibility in building integrations, ensuring users have the tools they need to address their unique integration challenges.

![Prismatic competitors](https://static.integration.app/prismatic_competitors_1d08e57435.png)

## [Merge.dev vs Prismatic.io](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/merge-dev-alternatives)

Merge, another competitor is known for its ability to easily integrate with multiple providers, efficient use of development time and resources by providing a unified API, and excellent customer support⁠. Its API is unified, meaning you can develop all you need yourself, but implementing customer-level configuration requires additional coding⁠. Some points of Merge compared to Prismatic:

- **Efficiency**: Designed to save development time and resources, appealing to businesses looking to optimize integration efforts.
- **Customer Support**: Noted for excellent customer support, offering crucial assistance and guidance.
- **Customization**: While offering a simplified development process, it requires additional coding for customer-level configuration and customization.

## [Apideck vs Prismatic.io](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/apideck-alternatives)

Both Apideck and Prismatic.io are integration platforms with unique strengths. Apideck is praised for its ease of integration, thorough documentation, and responsive support. It provides unified APIs and allows for flexibility and customization in building integrations also appreciated for its security features and fair pricing⁠. Prismatic, on the other hand, offers a robust suite of features and integrations, but its complexity can be a challenge for new users. Despite some UI/UX limitations, it remains a powerful tool in the iPaaS domain⁠. Ultimately, the best choice depends on your specific integration needs and challenges. Here are the main points of Apideck compared to Prismatic:

- **Ease of Integration**: Known for its straightforward integration process, making it user-friendly for developers of all skill levels.
- **Documentation and Support**: Offers comprehensive documentation and responsive support, easing the development and troubleshooting processes

## [Tray.io vs Prismatic.io](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/top-four-tray-embedded-alternatives-pros-cons)

Prismatic and Tray Embedded are both embedded iPaaS solutions. If you're looking for a powerful tool that can do it all, Prismatic is your answer! With a wide range of features and integrations, you'll be able to streamline your workflow and get things done more efficiently. However, we understand that it may take some time to get the hang of things. But the learning curve is worth it!. Tray Embedded, on the other hand, has been criticized for using iframes which can disrupt an app's natural look and feel, and for not scaling well when multiple integrations are needed, as each demands its own setup and maintenance⁠. Comparing Tray Embedded with Prismatic:

- **Iframe Usage**: Criticized for its reliance on iframes, which can affect the natural look and feel of applications, potentially leading to a disjointed user experience.
- **Scalability Issues**: Faces challenges in scaling, particularly when managing multiple integrations. Each integration requires its own setup and maintenance, which can become cumbersome and resource-intensive for businesses as their integration needs grow.

## How to choose the best Prismatic alternative?

There are many iPaaS solutions out there, each with its own pros and cons. Integration.app is a strong option, especially for businesses that want a user-friendly, scalable, and smooth integration experience. It speeds up the integration process and can be adjusted to fit the changing needs of modern companies.

Choosing the right software integration platform can greatly affect how well a business operates and innovates. Integration.app is ready to provide a solution that not only solves current integration issues but also prepares businesses for future growth. The best integration partner is one that fits with your business goals and makes success easier in the digital world.

See how Prismatic compares to other integration tools' breakdown of features, trade-offs, and what criteria to look for to find your best fit for delivering integrations

Prismatic alternatives

Nango dev is one of the unified integration tools that market themselves as “open source”

![Nango.dev open source](https://static.integration.app/image_46fc96d556.gif)

You might think oh then you see their source code and you might also think that it will be free. But it makes sense…

![nango-dev-open-source@2x.png](https://static.integration.app/nango_dev_open_source_2x_3b640f849b.png)

In short, they claim to be an “open source integration platform”, but the only thing that is available in open source is API proxy. Most other embedded integration vendors promise to build it in a few weeks or even in a week for you. You don’t need to build by yourself if you trust a vendor. 

Because for us being a vendor is to become a development partner and support you with new integrations.

## Nango.dev cons:

Users looking to self-host Nango syncs will find that it needs to be supported, with only authorization and proxying being self-hostable. For users who require specific hosting solutions, Nango is not working. That means for businesses that prioritize data authority and wish to manage their integrations within their infrastructure, this limitation is a critical factor to consider.

![nango self hosting](https://static.integration.app/nango_self_hosting_2x_0494254d84.png)

Let's start your first connection in nango.dev. You have to build it one by one and might ask yourself “Then what is the easy part of unified integrations?” Also, their custom sync documentation doesn’t show how to add a new app that is not in Nango yet..

![starting integration nango](https://static.integration.app/starting_integration_nango_1ac0963f29.gif)

Now let's take a closer look at Nango and understand why companies look for its alternatives and what strengths their competitors

![nango dev alternatives](https://static.integration.app/Group_1171275057_1_470f7ff888.png)

## Who is the best Nango.dev alternative?

Integration.app emerges as a strong contender, especially for businesses seeking deep customization and scalability. Here's why it stands out:

- **Customization and Scalability**: Offers a wide array of pre-built integrations and deep customization options.
- **AI-Powered Efficiency**: Automates the creation of similar integrations, saving significant time.
- **Developer-Friendly**: With comprehensive documentation, it appeals to a broad user base, unlike Nango.dev's more limited focus.
- **Pricing Model**: Offers a more flexible and cost-effective pricing strategy, only charging when users have live production integrations.

Here is all you need to build your unified API stack ⤓⤓

![add apps integration](https://static.integration.app/add_apps_integration_ff95f91d51.gif)

## [Merge.dev](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/merge-dev-alternatives)

The choice between Nango.dev and Merge.dev depends on the specific integration needs, desired level of control and customization, and the targeted application domain. Nango offers more flexibility and control for custom integrations, while Merge provides a broad range of pre-built integrations with a unified data model, suited for standardized integration needs.

### Nango's strength over Merge
Nango's open unified API architecture allows customization of pre-built integrations and development of custom integrations, offering full control while minimizing maintenance overhead. This makes it a better fit for those needing access to data or APIs not included in Merge’s model, or for those who wish to avoid constraints by external providers.

### Nango's weakness over Merge
Merge.dev's strength lies in its extensive range of pre-built integrations and a unified data model, making it suitable for a wide array of standardized integration requirements, especially in HR, payroll, accounting, CRM, and ticketing.

## [Tray Embedded](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/top-four-tray-embedded-alternatives-pros-cons)

Tray Embedded is known for its extensive connector library and visual workflow builder. However, it struggles with custom connector development, scalability, and API limitations. Its high pricing model can be prohibitive for many businesses.

### Nango's strength over Tray
Nango's approach might be more cost-effective for startups or businesses with specific integration needs, while Tray's higher starting price might be a consideration for smaller companies or those with limited budgets.

### Nango's weakness over Tray
Nango emphasizes removing the infrastructural burden from developers, whereas Tray offers a rich visual workflow builder, which is user-friendly but might not scale well for complex integrations.


## [Apideck](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/apideck-alternatives)

Nango offers more control and flexibility for developers who need to create or customize their integrations deeply, while Apideck is suited for those seeking an integration marketplace and simpler, more managed integration experiences, albeit with some limitations in terms of customization and integration depth.

### Nango vs Apideck
Nango seems more suited for developers who need a balance of pre-built and custom integrations, while Apideck may appeal to those looking for a marketplace to showcase integrations and simpler, managed integration experiences

**Conclusion**
While each platform has its strengths, Integration.app is a robust choice for businesses looking for a blend of customization, scalability, and developer-friendliness. Its AI-driven approach to integration creation and flexible pricing makes it an attractive option for a range of integration needs, setting it apart from Nango.dev and other competitors.

In short, they claim to be an “open source integration platform”, but the only thing that is available in open source is API proxy

In short, they claim to be an “open source integration platform”, but the only thing that is available in open source is API proxy. 

nango.dev alternatives

Nango.dev alternatives

Apideck has become a popular choice for developers looking to simplify API integration. But with a growing landscape of alternatives, it's important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each platform before making a decision. This guide will compare Apideck to Integration.app, UseParagon, Merge.dev, and Tray Embedded, helping you choose the right tool for your needs.

## How do businesses choose between Apideck and its competitors?

To eliminate Apideck alternatives first let's evaluate what Apideck promises:

- **Unified API development tool** to Integrate with multiple services through a single interface.
- **User-friendly interface** for developers of all skill levels.
- **Pre-built connectors to** save time with ready-made connections to different SaaS services.
- **Collaboration features to** work together on API integrations efficiently.

#### However, users look for alternatives because of some of these issues..

1. **Incomplete API/Unsupported Properties**: Some G2 users have mentioned that some data properties are not fully supported and some APIs are incomplete. Some customers also noted issues with receiving all the desired fields in responses from specific CRM calls, indicating inconsistencies with data models.
2. **Slow Addition of New Features**: Some users have mentioned the slow pace of adding new features. However, they have acknowledged that once implemented, they work across all connections.
3. **Limited Branding**: Some users would like to fully brand the connection process into their branding and conduct it within their site, rather than redirecting to Apideck Unify. 

## The best competitor of Apideck

**Integration.app** offers deep customization, AI-powered efficiency, and a developer-friendly environment. Its standout feature is the ability to scale by automatically building similar integrations, and it provides a fully-native UI. This makes it suitable for businesses looking for tailored, scalable, and efficient integration solutions

In essence, while Apideck offers a very large range of integrations (17k+) but most of their connectors are simple OAuth + APi proxy.  Integration.app focuses on deeper integration customization, scalability, and user-friendliness, catering to businesses seeking more tailored and efficient integration processes.

The most important aspect is the **flexibility**. [Integration.app](http://Integration.app) lets you create your own unified models and customize fields or logic per each specific app with a few clicks. You are never restricted to the data models built, you can always modify and extend them depending on your use cases. 

If you’re looking for a very simple solution for very basic use cases and low volume of data, Integration.app might not be the ideal choice to start with. However, it justifies the investment once your integrations start to mature a bit more.

## **Merge.dev**

Known for its unified API, [Merge.dev](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/merge-dev-alternatives) excels in simplifying HR and payroll integrations. It's user-friendly and comprehensive, particularly for standard use cases in HR, payroll, and recruiting. 

**Cons of Merge.dev**

1. **Data Import Restrictions:** Some users are unhappy with the limited options for restricting the types of data to import. This can lead to issues where all data, including possibly unnecessary or irrelevant information, needs to be imported from certain providers.
2. **Problems with real-time:** Users also face problems with real-time syncs with each integration. 
3. **Limited Feature Parity:** Despite the wide array of integrations Merge offers, users have noted that there isn't feature parity across all providers. This can lead to challenges when certain features are required for specific providers.

## Tray.io

An offshoot of Tray's main iPaaS offering allows for constructing embedded integrations. It's known for a large connector library and a visual workflow builder, but it struggles with scalability and customization. If you need detailed comparison for [Tray alternatives](https://integration.app/articles/comparisons/top-four-tray-embedded-alternatives-pros-cons), we might have one

**Cons of Tray**

1. **API Payload Handling**: Issues were noted with API payload returns, where Tray.io might attempt to make something "static" or "fixed" contrary to the live data
2. **Execution Time and Log Accessibility**: The time taken for execution and the need to toggle between sections to access logs is a noted downside. A more structured hierarchy for logs, especially during loops or boolean operations, could enhance readability
3. **Documentation**: The documentation could be more detailed to aid users in navigating the platform and resolving issues independently. Users struggle to find details for log errors or interpreting failed flows and sometimes it’s not up to date with the platform.
4. **Pricing Structure Changes**: Several changes in the pricing structure over time have made it harder for users to long-term plan
5. **Complexity in Some Areas**: Some users find certain integrations less intuitive and feel that some tasks are made more complex than they need to be. Generally, users find it more complicated than initially pitched/advertised especially for non-technical users

## UseParagon
Praised for its user-friendly drag-and-drop feature, UseParagon is ideal for basic integrations and those without complex requirements. However, it lacks deep customization capabilities. 

 
**Cons of Paragon**

1.  **Lack of certain features:** Some users mentioned missing features like multiple workspaces to separate dev & prod data and the ability to modularize workflow steps for reuse across multiple workflows. 
2. **Error Messaging:** some Paragon users pointed out that the error messages provided were not always helpful or clear.
3. **Limited Customization:** Lack of full customization options, particularly in terms of the connecting portal and specific integration functionality.

## Which Apideck alternatives offer the best user experience?

As a leading alternative [Integration.app](http://Integration.app) known for its deep customization options and AI-powered efficiency, it offers a developer-friendly environment with comprehensive documentation. Its standout feature is the ability to scale by automatically building similar integrations, coupled with a fully-native UI, enhancing the user experience significantly. See the example of [Hubspot connector.](https://integration.app/connectors/hubspot)

![Unified integration UI](https://static.integration.app/unified_integration_c8b59fe933.gif)

## How do Apideck alternatives compare in terms of features?

Each alternative offers a unique set of features tailored to different business needs, with Integration.app standing out for its extensive customization and AI-powered features. Pricing structures vary, with Integration.app providing detailed and flexible options.

- **AI-Powered Automation**: Uses AI to automatically generate integrations between your app and a variety of others, streamlining the integration process.
- **Customizable Connectors**: Tailor integrations to specific business needs.
- **Extensive Customization**: Beyond pre-built connectors, it allows for deep customization, including handling custom fields effectively.

![ Apideck alternatives](https://static.integration.app/apideck_alternatives_7368a8ea4d.png)


## How do alternatives to Apideck contribute to business automation and efficiency?

Alternatives to Apideck, such as Integration.app, UseParagon, and Tray, contribute to business automation and efficiency in several ways - **Integration.app** offers tailored solutions for specific business needs, ensuring efficient integration processes. Its AI engine automates the creation of similar integrations, saving time and resources.

### Conclusion: How do businesses choose between Apideck and its competitors?

In summary, while each alternative has its unique strengths, Integration.app's comprehensive and adaptable approach makes it a standout choice for businesses aiming to streamline their software integrations effectively.

Integration.app emerges as a powerful, promising ( see [TechCrunch announcement](https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/07/integration-app-uses-llms-to-connect-apps-and-services-together/)), flexible, and user-friendly alternative in the API integration space. Its ability to cater to a wide range of integration needs and scale with business growth positions it as a wise choice for both small startups and large enterprises. The right tool like Integration.app can simplify processes and unlock new possibilities for projects.

See how Apideck compares to other integration tools, a breakdown of features, trade-offs and what criteria to look for to find your best fit for delivering integrations

Apideck users look for alternatives because of some of these issues.. 

Apideck alternatives

Apideck alternatives | Exploring the Best in Unified API Integration

When it comes to unified API integration tools, Merge.dev has been a notable benchmark, known for its streamlined integration capabilities for HR, payroll, and recruiting. However, there are several other players which bring their unique strengths to the table. This blog aims to provide an in-depth comparison of Merge.dev with its alternatives, focusing on their features, pros, cons, and best use cases.

## **Understanding Merge.dev**

Merge.dev shines with its unified API, making HR and payroll integrations a breeze. It's user-friendly and comprehensive, a solid pick for many. But unified API only work when you have a very simple and standard use case. When you want to do something non-standard or go beyond the list of connectors provided by Merge, you should consider alternatives

## **Merge.dev Alternative #1: Integration.app**

Integration.app is quickly making waves in unified API integration. It offers custom connectors and custom options, all wrapped in a user-friendly package. Let's see why Integration.app could be your go-to choice over Merge.dev:

### **Key Advantages**

- **Customization and Scalability:** Tailor-made for your business needs, Integration.app stands out with its array of pre-built integrations and deep customization options.
- **AI-Powered Efficiency:** Its AI engine cuts down manual work, automating the creation of similar integrations - a huge time-saver.
- **Developer-Friendly:** With comprehensive documentation, Integration.app appeals to a broad user base, unlike Merge.dev's more narrowed focus.
- **Expansive Connector List:** It boasts a competitive edge in developing and deploying integrations swiftly. Check out [the list of connectors](https://integration.app/connectors) for a glimpse of its capabilities.

## When to choose Merge.dev?

Merge.dev is best for basic HR or Finance needs without needing any special changes.

:::zoom[https://static.integration.app/merge_dev_alternative_a4b8f43fd7.png]

![Merge.dev alternatives](https://static.integration.app/merge_dev_alternative_a4b8f43fd7.png)

:::


## **Merge.dev Alternative #2: UseParagon**

### **What's Great About UseParagon?**

UseParagon is like the handy toolkit for software builders. It's got this cool drag-and-drop feature which means you don't need to be a coding wizard to make things work. It's all about getting your software to talk to other software quickly and without much fuss. According to G2 reviews of users most people prefer UseParagon to Merge in terms of Workflow automation.

### **But Wait, There's a Catch...**

- **Not Super Customizable**: Imagine you're building a model airplane but your kit only has a few types of parts. That's a bit like UseParagon – great for standard builds but not so much if you need something very specific.
- **Better for Simpler Tasks**: If your project is like a giant jigsaw puzzle, UseParagon might be a bit too basic. It's awesome for simpler stuff but might struggle with really complex tasks.

### **Who Will Love UseParagon?**

If you need to get basic integrations off the ground fast and don't want to get bogged down in technical details, UseParagon could be your new best friend.

## **Merge.dev Alternative #3: ApiDeck**

### **What Makes ApiDeck Cool?**

Think of ApiDeck as a giant mall with all kinds of stores (APIs) under one roof. It's got a huge variety of integrations, which means you can pretty much find anything you need for your software to connect with.

### **The Other Side of the Coin...**

- **Jack of All, Master of None**: Sometimes, having too many options means you don't get the super specialized stuff. ApiDeck is great for general needs but might not fit the bill for very niche requirements.
- **Can Get a Bit Tricky**: While it's designed to be user-friendly, managing all these integrations can get overwhelming, especially if you're new to this.

### **Best Fit for ApiDeck**

ApiDeck is fantastic for businesses that want to connect with lots of different services but might not need super in-depth features for each.

## **Merge.dev Alternative #4: Kombo**

### **The Highlights of Kombo**

Kombo focuses on making software work together, especially for businesses in Europe. It's about providing smooth connections, particularly for HR and recruiting tools, making sure everything updates in real time and stays secure.

### **Consider These Points....**

- **Primarily for Europe**: If your business mainly deals outside Europe, Kombo might not have everything you need.
- **One Size Might Not Fit All**: Like ApiDeck, Kombo is great for general needs but might not hit the mark for very unique, tailored requirements.

### **Who Should Consider Kombo?**

Businesses focusing on the European market and looking for straightforward, secure ways to integrate different software systems will find Kombo to be a valuable asset. Kombo is Germany based company backed by YCombinator(22).

## **What might be your ideal choice?**

While UseParagon, ApiDeck, and Kombo each have their unique offerings, Integration.app emerges as a robust, flexible, and user-friendly alternative to Merge.dev. It not only caters to a wide range of integration needs but also scales with your business. 

Whether you're a small startup or a large enterprise, Integration.app provides a comprehensive and adaptable API integration solution, making it a wise choice for businesses aiming to streamline their software integrations effectively. Remember, the right tool can simplify your processes and unlock new possibilities for your projects.

When it comes to unified API integration tools, Merge.dev has been a notable benchmark, known for its streamlined integration capabilities for HR, payroll, and recruiting. However..

Merge.dev Alternatives

Merge.dev Alternatives | Top Competitors in Unified API Integration 

Tray is often the platform by which alternative integration solutions are compared. Tray offers a large connector library and a rich visual workflow builder. However, since Tray wasn’t originally built for native embedded integrations, customers often find themselves building workarounds to fulfill their integration needs. While Tray does offer premium custom connector services, they do come at a premium price.

In addition to their main iPaaS offering, their Tray Embedded product allows customers to build embedded (partially-native) integrations. 

Let’s take a closer look at the key advantages and disadvantages of Tray Embedded and the best alternatives to consider.


## Key Advantages of Tray Embedded

There are two key points on what makes Tray a favorable choice.

#### Workflow Builder
Sitting at the core of Tray, is their visual workflow builder (shown below) which enables non-technical customers, to visually build integrations:

:::zoom[https://static.integration.app/Stripe_Sub_Tracker_2_beecd89445.png]

![Stripe_Sub_Tracker_2.png](https://static.integration.app/Stripe_Sub_Tracker_2_beecd89445.png)

:::


If you need to build a few workflows connecting your app with other apps, Tray will solve this problem well. Beyond that, you may experience scalability issues.

The workflow builder’s connector system, supplemented by its support for JSONPath expressions, makes the integration process easy, even for less-technical stakeholders with only a basic understanding of APIs and networking.

#### Connector Library
Tray Embedded inherited an extensive connector library from Tray’s existing iPaaS solution. This enables you to connect with a large portion of business applications which your customers likely use.

## Key Disadvantages of Tray Embedded

Now, let's break down some of trade-offs you'll have by using Tray.

#### Lack of Custom Connectors

With Tray, you can't build your own connectors or modify existing ones. You have to request additions or updates from the Tray team and then wait for them. Needless to say, this will throw any production schedule off and create an unnecessary risk factor. 

#### Lack of Scalability
Tray and many embedded iPaaS solutions don’t necessarily scale well when adding multiple integrations. For each external service you want to integrate with, you have to implement a new integration flow for each scenario you want to support. The following tables illustrate how these numbers compound:

![Tray Flows](https://static.integration.app/tray_flows_4a9422c11b.jpg)

As this table shows, the number of integrations required using Tray is a function of the number of scenarios to be supported and the number of apps you want to integrate with.

#### UI Customization is not Fully Integrated
Tray enables you to embed a simple customized UI via an iframe or popup that looks similar to the following:


![config-wizard-slack-channel-error-channel.png](https://static.integration.app/config_wizard_slack_channel_error_channel_a9af8c60af.png)

Although you can customize the styles to roughly match your app’s, Tray’s UI will never feel like a part of your app.


#### Limited API

Another shortcoming of Tray is it’s API, which is limited to three main areas of functionality:

- Manage users
- Manage user authentication
- Manage integration instances for users

So when it comes time to manage other aspects of your integration(s) from code, you won’t be able to do it with Tray.

#### Pricing
Tray’s pricing starts at $50K/year and grows based on the number of integrations and customers. To start developing your integrations with Tray, you need to commit tens of thousands of dollars, regardless of whether your customers end up using those integrations. 


## 1. Tray Embedded Alternative: Integration.app

Integration.app is an integration stack for your SaaS app. It offers configurable connectors and integration logic, logic blocks, and well-developed debugging and troubleshooting capabilities. It also supports extensive customization including custom code, and handles authentication, errors, rate limits, and data mappings. Integration.app’s stand-out feature is its Universal Integrations, enabling you to build dozens of integrations at once with multiple apps that have similar use cases, which is the ultimate scaling solution for integrations.

#### Customizations
Integration.app features a large and growing set of prebuilt integrations across a variety of verticals, and if an integration doesn’t exist, it’s easy for you to create one. Integration.app also lets your users customize every aspect of the integration if they choose to, including:

- Connectors
- Custom 
- API calls
- Custom fields on both your app and service sides, along with custom field mappings
- Custom integration flows

#### Scalability

Integration.app automatically builds similar integrations for you – you just need to describe them once, and its AI-powered engine will take care of the rest. You can then modify the results (e.g., field mappings) as required. For example, consider the scenario where you want to integrate with 20 CRMs and provide the following capabilities for each:

- Import contacts
- Import companies
- Create contacts
- Update contacts
- Add activity to a contacts

With Tray, you need to build and maintain 100 different flows. With Integration.app, you would only need five flows.

#### Code or No-Code

Integration.app provides a rich console for enabling a no-code or low-code approach. It also provides a rich API with over 100 endpoints, giving you programmatic access to literally every aspect of the platform. You have the option to work in the console, through its API, or a mixture of both.

Integration.app also provides full transparency about the underlying APIs invoked. It can surface rich and contextual information to help you and your users with self-service monitoring and troubleshooting. Integration.app lets your users know when something doesn’t work with their integrations and gives them enough context to troubleshoot. Integration.app also welcomes feedback to help improve troubleshooting information.

#### Fully-Native UI

Integration.app provides a fully-native UI with just one line of code. It does not rely on redirects or iframes, nor does it require any external HTML or CSS. Here are some examples of how customized UIs look for our customers:

:::zoom[https://static.integration.app/tray_integrationapp_whitelabel_5d079c68db.jpg]

![tray_integrationapp_whitelabel.jpg](https://static.integration.app/tray_integrationapp_whitelabel_5d079c68db.jpg)

:::


#### Pricing

With Integration.app, you only start paying when your first user has live production integrations. You can either pay per integration deployed ($199/month per connector) or pay for access to all integrations available in the store ($499/month and a fixed price per end-user that uses integrations). See [Pricing ](link)for more information.

Tray is a good choice if you need to quickly build a small number of lightly customizable integrations. Integration.app is better if you want to fully integrate with more than two to three apps, build a native integration UI, and/or don’t want to pay tens of thousands of dollars up front.

## 2. Tray Embedded Alternative: Paragon

Like Tray Embedded, Paragon is an embedded iPaaS solution and users like Paragon’s ease of implementing their solution and its rich catalog of native integrations. Paragon provides the option for on-premise deployment for customers with data security and privacy concerns. 

#### Target Customers

Paragon was built from the ground up for building native integrations, while Tray is aimed at teams like marketing and sales operations. Paragon is also more developer-friendly, providing a more extensive API than Tray (but less extensive than some other options here)

#### UI and White Labeling
Paragon provides a pre-built, UI with fully managed authentication that you can style to better match your application. Tray offers a hosted, external hub which requires you to embed a link, or you can create a custom UI via their API which can be challenging. In this day and age, Paragon’s approach to the UI provides a better experience for both you as an integrator and your users.

#### Monitoring
Paragon offers monitoring support including event alerts, an end-user management/debugging dashboard, streams for error logging, and task history logging, whereas out of this list, Tray only offers the task history logging. However Tray does offer facilities that help to swiftly respond to various situations including audits to find duplicate leads and those misrouted to incorrect accounts, as well as several analytics including team usage and partner diagnostics.

#### Connectors
Paragon currently has 134 connectors compared to Tray’s 439, which becomes a disadvantage if you want to integrate with more applications. 

## 3. Tray Embedded Alternative: Merge
Merge provides a unified API through which your app can access different services. This works well for generic integrations since you easily integrate with multiple providers, manage authentications, and more generally, focus on your core product functionality.

#### Scalability
Merge enables you to connect to categories of apps through a single API integration. For example, you can integrate with Merge’s service for HR APIs and receive data from the individual integrations in the same format. That’s the power of a unified API. The downside of course, is that unified APIs cater to the lowest common denominator, which makes customizations and integration-specific functionality difficult.

On the other hand, Tray requires you to build one-to-one integrations with each target platform but enables you to build custom business logic and workflows. This is useful for building and customizing one-off integrations for specific customers.

#### Category-Based Integrations

Merge’s integrations are currently categorized as follows:

- Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
- Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS)
- Application Tracking Systems (ATS)
- Accounting
- Task Management
- Marketing Automation

Merges provides end-to-end management of those integrations along with tools giving full visibility into the integration. However, if your integration requirements don’t align with one of the aforementioned categories, then Merge may not be the right solution for your project.

#### API

Since Merge is a unified API, it’s inherently geared towards developers. This aligns well if your integration efforts are primarily handled by a development team. Developers will appreciate the API’s abstractions of the underlying APIs. However, some developers may seek more customization options than a unified API can provide. For example, you cannot add your own connectors or modify existing connectors with Merge. For all non-trivial use cases, you end up managing differences between APIs in your code, which defeats the purpose of a unified API. 

Conversely, Tray’s core product is inherently an internal, low-code automation solution which may be better suited for less-technical stakeholders. For example, Tray’s connector system is supplemented by support for JSONPath expressions. This makes the integration process easy, even for less-technical stakeholders with only a basic understanding of APIs and networking.

## 4. Tray Embedded Alternative: Workato

Workato is a low-code iPaaS solution with support for on-premise deployments. Workato caters to both technical and non-technical individuals, by providing a user-friendly and intuitive interface and easy workflow creation, although some users still find it complicated. 

#### Automation

Workato is suitable for automating complex, cross-application business processes, though some customers note that Workato lacks notifications for automation failures which can make troubleshooting difficult. 

Workato is often used for tasks involving multiple applications and departments like data synchronization, lead-to-cash processes, and HR workflows. This stems from its connections to a wide array of integrations including MarTech applications, CRMs, project management tools, accounting software, learning platforms, and more. On the other hand, Tray is ideal for automating tasks and processes within a single application because it focuses on providing tailored, in-app automation experiences to end-users.

Tray and Workato both focus on integrations for business functionality (e.g., sales, HR, marketing), and may not be suitable for other types of applications. They are both great tools for automation, however, they’re not built for user-facing integrations and lack functionality like managed user authentication.

#### Target Customers

Workato caters to both IT professionals and business customers, offering a balance between IT governance and a user-friendly interface. This makes it suitable for enterprises looking to automate workflows which span multiple applications. Tray is suitable for developers and business professionals who want to integrate automation directly into their applications without extensive coding. 

#### Connectors

With over 1000 integration connectors currently available, Workato currently has a larger collection than Tray’s current 439. Tray’s connectors are also primarily B2B-focused, so it may be worth investigating both products to ensure they have the connectors you need.

## Native Integration Solutions at a Glance

As we’ve shown, Tray Embedded and several Tray Embedded alternatives, each have their pros and cons which need to be weighed when you’re choosing a solution for your application.

The following table summarizes key considerations when choosing a native integration solution.

:::zoom[https://static.integration.app/tray_large_table_0c5677c781.jpg]

![tray_large_table.jpg](https://static.integration.app/tray_large_table_0c5677c781.jpg)

:::


## Integrate Today!
We hope the key considerations we’ve presented in this article help you to choose the right native integration solution for you.


Here at **Integration.app**, we’ve sought to provide a comprehensive, intuitive, and flexible Tray Embedded integration alternative in the native integration space. For more information, visit our [Developer Documentation](https://console.integration.app/docs/overview) and learn how to get started with Integration.app. Then head to our [home page](https://integration.app/) and book a demo.


See a detailed breakdown of which tools to explore when considering an integration platform. What are the benefits and drawbacks of the most popular Tray Embedded alternatives.

Tray alternatives

Top Four Tray Embedded Alternatives: Pros and Cons


Zapier is a great tool that was initially designed to create automations between apps, with an internal use case in mind (e.g. send data from Gsheets rows to my Salesforce). Over the years, they developed a marketplace with thousands of apps that SaaS companies can use to create automations between their own app and other SaaS apps.

It's a good place to start if you're just starting a new SaaS company and want to rely on Zapier for a thin but broad level of connectivity.

However, as soon as you start scaling your customer will want to access integrations from inside of your product. It's simply a better customer experience: they don't have to leave your product and they don't need to build integrations on their own every time.

There are several limitations that Zapier has for building customer-facing integrations. Below we are going to breakdown the important differences.


## Native Integration Experience vs 3rd Party Integration Experience

Integration.app focuses on helping product teams add native integrations to their B2B SaaS applications, while Zapier is a tool for business users that lets them connect a few apps they use.

With Zapier, you have to send your user to an external website, they have to pay for it, learn it, and build their integrations from scratch.

With Integration.app, your users can enable integrations in one click.


<div class='grid md:grid-cols-9 md:gap-12'>
<div class='md:col-span-4'>

![Integration.app workflow](https://static.integration.app/image01_8693f049e6.png "Using Integration.app")

</div>
<div class='md:col-span-5'>

![Zapier workflow](https://static.integration.app/image02_1982294a8a.png "Using Zapier")

</div>
</div>

## Automated Integrations vs Manual Integrations

Integration.app uses AI to automatically generate integrations between your app and dozens of other apps your customers use, while Zapier relies on pre-built connectors and triggers that need to be configured manually.

With Zapier, you have to build every integration scenario from scratch for every app and in many cases for every customer. With integration.app you only build each unique integration scenario once.

This means you can ship new integrations exponentially faster than using Zapier.

![Integration.app workflow](https://static.integration.app/image03_776ac557ab.png "Using Integration.app")

![Zapier workflow](https://static.integration.app/image04_11aa0c6087.png "Using Zapier")


## Developer Experience

Integration.app provides a world-class developer experience, with API and SDK for everything, and there is not a single feature in their platform you cannot access programmatically. Zapier also provides API access, but it is much more limited in terms of functionality.

We've designed the product to have a huge scope and configurability. Every step in your integration process can be customised by you either via API or through UI. 

Zapier mostly allows to do quick simple actions and triggers but you will eventually hit roadblocks when you need to go a step deeper.

It's one of the main reasons a developer-first experience is needed, to give you control of your integrations and work in-tandem with your own code-base & product to offer the most optimal integration to your customers.

## Integration UI

Integration.app offers a pre-built Integration UI, which can save months of time on building your own, while Zapier does not help you with UI at all.

## How to embed Zapier for B2B SaaS integrations?

Integration.app lets you extend your workspace with new connectors, so you are never limited by what we’ve built. For more information, check out [Connector Builder](https://integration.app/connector-builder) a new way of building an integration with any app with an API using LLM-powered features.

With Zapier, you have to wait for other developers to build connectors to their apps.


Quick overview of how Integration.app brings a different integration experience to your SaaS product compared to Zapier

Comparisons

Prismatic alternatives

Nango.dev alternatives

Apideck alternatives | Exploring the Best in Unified API Integration

Merge.dev Alternatives | Top Competitors in Unified API Integration

Top Four Tray Embedded Alternatives: Pros and Cons

How integration.app is different from Zapier

Get better integration infrastructure for your SaaS product today.