n8n vs Make
Both outgrow Zapier. Here is how they compare on pricing, control, and complexity - and which one your automations can grow up in.
Updated July 2026
n8n
Open-source, self-hostable, code when you need it
Make
Polished visual builder, per-operation pricing
Feature Comparison
n8n
Make
Pricing model
Per workflow execution - a 50-step workflow counts once. Self-hosted is free beyond infrastructure.
Per operation - every module run counts. Complex scenarios multiply costs fast as volume grows.
Self-hosting
Full self-hosting on your infrastructure. Your data never leaves your servers - important for GDPR and sensitive data.
Cloud only. Your data flows through Make's servers on every run.
Complex logic
Branching, loops, error workflows, and full JavaScript/Python code nodes when visual building is not enough.
Strong visual routing and iteration, but hits a ceiling on custom logic - no real code escape hatch.
Ease of use
Steeper learning curve; built for technical users and developers.
More polished visual experience; easier for non-technical operators to start with.
Integrations
1,000+ nodes, plus custom nodes and generic HTTP/webhook nodes for anything missing.
2,000+ apps with polished modules; custom apps possible but within Make's framework.
Scale
Queue mode and horizontal scaling handle millions of executions per day when architected properly.
Scales within plan limits; heavy volume gets expensive and rate-limited.
Pricing model
n8n
Per workflow execution - a 50-step workflow counts once. Self-hosted is free beyond infrastructure.
Make
Per operation - every module run counts. Complex scenarios multiply costs fast as volume grows.
Self-hosting
n8n
Full self-hosting on your infrastructure. Your data never leaves your servers - important for GDPR and sensitive data.
Make
Cloud only. Your data flows through Make's servers on every run.
Complex logic
n8n
Branching, loops, error workflows, and full JavaScript/Python code nodes when visual building is not enough.
Make
Strong visual routing and iteration, but hits a ceiling on custom logic - no real code escape hatch.
Ease of use
n8n
Steeper learning curve; built for technical users and developers.
Make
More polished visual experience; easier for non-technical operators to start with.
Integrations
n8n
1,000+ nodes, plus custom nodes and generic HTTP/webhook nodes for anything missing.
Make
2,000+ apps with polished modules; custom apps possible but within Make's framework.
Scale
n8n
Queue mode and horizontal scaling handle millions of executions per day when architected properly.
Make
Scales within plan limits; heavy volume gets expensive and rate-limited.
Our Recommendation
Make is the better pure no-code experience for a small number of straightforward scenarios run by non-technical teams. n8n wins as soon as automations become infrastructure: per-execution pricing that survives volume, self-hosting for data control, and code nodes for the logic that visual builders cannot express. If automations run your operations rather than assist them, build on n8n - and harden the critical logic into deterministic code so it runs the same way every time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is n8n cheaper than Make?
At low volume they are comparable. At scale, n8n is dramatically cheaper because it charges per workflow execution rather than per operation - a 50-step workflow counts as one execution in n8n but 50 operations in Make. Self-hosted n8n removes per-execution costs entirely; you pay only for infrastructure.
Can I migrate from Make to n8n?
Yes. There is no automatic converter, but scenarios map cleanly to n8n workflows, and migration is a chance to redesign the tangled ones. We migrate in parallel - both platforms run side by side until each workflow is verified - so nothing breaks during the cutover. Typical migrations take 2-4 weeks.
Which is better for a non-technical team?
Make has the gentler learning curve for non-technical operators building simple scenarios. But "non-technical team" and "business-critical automation" is a risky combination on any platform - when workflows start moving money or customer data, someone technical should own error handling, monitoring, and access control. That is usually the point teams bring us in.
What about Zapier?
Zapier is the easiest entry point and the first ceiling teams hit - per-task pricing explodes at volume and complex logic is not really supported. Most teams graduate from Zapier to either Make (simpler, still no-code) or n8n (more control, more scale). See our full n8n vs Zapier comparison for that decision.
More Comparisons
AI Agents vs Compiled Code
AI is a compiler, not a runtime. Here is when to let an agent improvise, and when to compile the work into deterministic code that runs forever.
n8n vs Zapier
Which automation platform is right for your team? A detailed comparison based on real production deployments - and either way, the win is spending tokens to compile the work, not to run it.
OpenAI vs Anthropic
GPT-5 vs Claude 4 - which AI provider is right for your production application? Compared across real-world performance in 2026 - and remember, the model is the compiler, not the runtime.
RAG vs Fine-Tuning
Two approaches to making AI work with your data. Here is when to use each, based on real production experience - both are thinking-time techniques, and the doing should still run as deterministic code.
Claude vs ChatGPT for Business
Two excellent models with different strengths. Here is how they compare for business use and product integration - and why the answer is often both.
Lovable vs Bolt.new
Both turn a prompt into a working app. Here is how they differ, where each hits a ceiling, and what still separates a generated app from a production one.
In-House AI Team vs Agency
Build the team or buy the outcome? What each path really costs, how fast each ships, and the hybrid that usually wins for startups and SMBs.
Need help choosing?
We help teams pick the right technology and compile the work into production-ready code with a measurable Return on Tokens. Book a free consultation.
Free consultation