Comparison · Automation Platforms
Make vs n8n: visual cloud builder or open-source self-hosted?
Make.com is the visual automation platform that Integromat users grew up on. n8n is the open-source alternative that technically inclined teams reach for when they want unlimited runs and full data control. Both build automation workflows. The difference is everything underneath: pricing model, infrastructure ownership, AI depth, and how much you want to manage a server.
01 · Quick Verdict
The short answer on Make vs n8n.
Make.com if you want a visual builder that runs in the cloud with no server work and a generous free tier. n8n if you want unlimited executions, real AI agent capability, and full data ownership, and you can handle a one-time server setup.
| Category | Make.com | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Best For | Visual thinkers, moderate volume, no infrastructure appetite | Tech-comfortable teams, high volume, AI workflows, data privacy |
| Starting Price | Free (1,000 ops/mo). Paid from $9/mo | Free self-hosted. Cloud from $20/mo. No per-execution fees |
| App Integrations | 1,200+ native connectors | 400+ native, unlimited via HTTP/API |
| Setup Effort | Zero. sign up and build | Self-hosted: 1-2 hrs to get a server running |
| Our Pick | Right for most small businesses who want visual control without a server | Right for scaling teams who want control, AI depth, and lower costs |
02 · Make.com
Make.com. what you need to know.
The visual-first automation platform formerly known as Integromat. A canvas-based builder with strong native integrations, per-operation pricing, and zero infrastructure overhead.
Make (formerly Integromat) rebranded in 2022 and has spent years building one of the cleanest visual automation canvases in the market. Scenarios in Make are built by dragging modules onto a canvas and connecting them visually. The interface shows you data flowing between steps in real time during testing, which makes debugging much more intuitive than Zapier's list-based builder.
Make charges per operation, not per task like Zapier. Each module action counts as one operation. A scenario with 8 modules that runs 200 times a month uses 1,600 operations. The Core plan at $9/month includes 10,000 operations. For small businesses running light to moderate automation volume, that is a lot of headroom for a small monthly fee.
Make's native integration library sits at 1,200+ apps, which puts it well ahead of n8n's 400+ but behind Zapier's 8,000+. For most mainstream business software, Make has you covered. Where you hit gaps is niche industry tools, at which point you fall back to webhooks and HTTP modules.
- Visual canvas with real branching. Make's scenario builder shows your automation as a connected graph. Routers, filters, error handlers, and iterators are all first-class features. You can see exactly how data splits and recombines at every step.
- Cheaper than Zapier at similar volume. Make's per-operation pricing is lower than Zapier's per-task equivalent. A business running 30 moderately complex scenarios will spend significantly less on Make than on Zapier's equivalent plan.
- No-code friendly. Like Zapier, Make requires no server setup. Sign up, connect your apps, build scenarios. The canvas takes 30 minutes to get comfortable with. There is no infrastructure knowledge required.
- Generous free tier. 1,000 operations per month and access to most integrations. That is enough to run a handful of real automations before you need to upgrade. Zapier's free plan is more restricted.
- Still per-operation at scale. Once you are running dozens of complex, high-frequency scenarios, Make's pricing climbs. The Pro plan ($16/mo for 10k ops) and Teams plan ($29/mo for 10k ops) are still metered. n8n self-hosted has no meter at all.
- AI integration feels bolted on. Make has added OpenAI modules and other AI connectors, but the platform was not designed around AI-native workflows. Building agents with memory, tool use, and multi-step reasoning is workable but feels like fighting the grain of the tool.
- Data flows through Make's servers. Every payload your scenarios process passes through Make's infrastructure. For businesses handling sensitive client data, that is a compliance consideration worth thinking through before you build your stack.
- Fewer native integrations than Zapier. 1,200+ is a lot. But it is not 8,000+. For mainstream software you are fine. For specialized vertical tools, you will hit HTTP module territory more often on Make than on Zapier.
03 · n8n
n8n. what you need to know.
Open-source, self-hostable, and purpose-built for teams that want power without a per-execution meter. The tradeoff is server setup and ongoing infrastructure responsibility.
n8n launched in 2019 with a different bet than Make or Zapier: make the core product open-source and charge for cloud hosting and enterprise licenses, not per execution. That pricing decision changes the math entirely for any business running serious automation volume. A $10/month VPS runs n8n with no cap on workflows, runs, or data volume.
The n8n workflow canvas is visually similar to Make. You drag nodes onto a canvas and connect them. The interface will feel familiar if you have built scenarios in Make. Where n8n diverges is in code nodes: you can drop JavaScript or Python directly into any workflow. No workarounds, no hitting a wall when the GUI does not support your logic. For teams with any developer access, that changes what is possible.
n8n's biggest 2026 differentiator is AI. The platform ships native AI agent nodes, LangChain integration, and support for OpenAI, Anthropic, and local models via Ollama. You can build workflows where an LLM classifies input, routes based on the classification, calls tools, and loops back. That is not a workaround. it is the intended use case.
- No execution limits. Self-hosted n8n runs unlimited workflows with no metering. You pay for server time, not workflow runs. At moderate to high volume, this saves hundreds of dollars per month versus Make or Zapier.
- AI-native architecture. First-class AI agent nodes, LangChain integration, and local model support via Ollama. You can build multi-step AI workflows where the LLM has memory, calls tools, and branches on its own output. Make can approximate this, but n8n was designed for it.
- Full data ownership. Self-hosted means your workflow data stays on your server. For healthcare, legal, financial, or any client-facing business where data residency matters, this is often non-negotiable.
- Code nodes for custom logic. Drop JavaScript or Python anywhere in a workflow. No restrictions on what you can compute. When a GUI node does not exist, write the logic directly. This capability alone makes n8n a different category of tool for teams with developer access.
- Setup requires a server and some command-line comfort. You need to provision a VPS, install n8n via Docker or npm, configure SSL, point a domain, and handle updates. That is a real barrier for non-technical owners. Make has none of this.
- Fewer native integrations. 400+ apps natively versus Make's 1,200+. n8n can reach anything via HTTP Request nodes, but that requires knowing the target API. If your stack includes niche industry software, check for n8n community nodes before assuming coverage.
- Smaller community than Make or Zapier. Growing fast, but when you hit an edge case, solutions take longer to surface than in Make's or Zapier's mature community ecosystems.
- Self-hosted uptime is your responsibility. Server goes down, workflows stop. Make is managed cloud with SLA-backed uptime. n8n Cloud eliminates this concern at $20/month, but that narrows the pricing advantage.
04 · Head-to-Head
Make vs n8n across every category that actually matters.
Row by row, no hedging. Here is where each tool wins in the Make vs n8n matchup.
| Feature | Make.com | n8n | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing Model | Per operation (each module action = 1 op) | Self-hosted: flat server cost. Cloud: per workflow, not per execution | n8n. no meter running on self-hosted |
| Free Tier | 1,000 ops/mo, most integrations included | Unlimited on self-hosted. Cloud: trial available | n8n for volume. Make for no-setup convenience |
| App Integrations | 1,200+ native connectors | 400+ native, unlimited via HTTP Request nodes | Make. native library is broader |
| Visual Builder | Canvas-based, data-flow visualization during testing | Canvas-based, similar paradigm, slightly less polished UI | Make. marginally better UX out of the box |
| Setup Time | Under 10 minutes. sign up and build | Self-hosted: 1-2 hours. Cloud: under 10 minutes | Make. zero infrastructure work |
| AI Capability | OpenAI modules and AI connectors available | Native AI agent nodes, LangChain, local model support | n8n. built for AI-native workflows |
| Workflow Complexity | Routers, filters, iterators, error paths | Full branching, loops, parallel paths, error routes, code nodes | n8n. more flexible at the edges |
| Custom Code | Limited. some tools module but restricted | Full JavaScript and Python nodes inline in any workflow | n8n. no restrictions |
| Data Privacy | Data passes through Make's cloud servers | Self-hosted: data never leaves your server | n8n. full data ownership |
| Reliability | Managed, SLA-backed uptime | Self-hosted: your responsibility. Cloud: comparable to Make | Make (self-hosted n8n). Cloud n8n is a tie |
| Learning Curve | Low to medium. visual and intuitive | Medium to high. powerful, more to configure | Make. faster for non-technical users |
| Open Source | No. closed SaaS product | Yes. fair-code license, self-hostable | n8n. if open-source matters to you |
$240-$2,400/yr
Typical savings switching from Make Pro/Teams to self-hosted n8n at equivalent workflow volume
1-2 hrs
One-time setup time to get self-hosted n8n running on a VPS
Based on a small business running 15-30 active automations with moderate execution volume.
05 · Which Should You Choose
The decision, made simple.
Stop reading comparisons and pick one. Here is the framework.
- You want a visual builder without a server. Make's canvas is polished and requires no infrastructure work. If you liked Integromat or want something more visual than Zapier but still fully managed, Make is the answer.
- Your volume is low to moderate. If you are running 10-20 scenarios that fire a few hundred times each per month, Make's pricing is extremely reasonable. The $9/month Core plan covers a lot of ground.
- You need native integrations for mainstream apps. 1,200+ connectors covers most business software well. If you are connecting Google Workspace, HubSpot, Slack, Shopify, and similar tools, Make handles it cleanly.
- You have no developer on staff. Make was designed to be operated by people who think visually but not technically. The learning curve is real but manageable for a motivated non-developer.
- Your Make bill is growing. If you are spending $29+ per month on Make and workflow volume is increasing, the math for self-hosted n8n becomes compelling. A $10/month VPS runs unlimited workflows with no operation cap.
- You are building AI-powered workflows. n8n's AI agent nodes are meaningfully more capable than Make's AI modules. If your automations involve LLM reasoning, memory, tool calling, or local models, n8n is the better foundation.
- Data privacy is non-negotiable. Healthcare, legal, financial, HR workflows. if your automations touch sensitive client data and you need it to stay on your infrastructure, self-hosted n8n is the right call.
- You have developer access. Even part-time developer access unlocks n8n fully. Custom code nodes, API integrations, and complex logic patterns are all on the table with minimal friction.
You want someone to make this decision for you, build the workflows, and keep them running. We work with both Make and n8n depending on what fits your business and your infrastructure appetite. You do not need to learn either platform.
We will pick the right tool, build the automations you actually need, and hand you something that runs without babysitting. Book a free call to talk it through.
06 · Hidden Costs
What neither pricing page tells you upfront.
The advertised price is rarely the real price. Here is what to look for before you commit in the Make vs n8n decision.
- Operations stack up fast with iterators. Make's iterator module processes each item in an array as a separate operation. A scenario that pulls 50 records and processes each one costs 50+ operations per run, not one. Iterators are common in real workflows. Factor them into your usage estimate.
- Scheduled scenarios run even if they find nothing. If your scenario checks for new records every 15 minutes and there is nothing to process, it still burns operations for the trigger check. Over a month, that adds up on high-frequency triggers.
- Scenario history limits on lower plans. Make limits execution history to 30 days on the Core plan. If you need to audit what ran for compliance or debugging, higher plan access costs more.
- Team plan pricing jumps at user count. The Teams plan charges per user above a base count. For agencies or businesses adding multiple team members to the account, the effective monthly cost can climb significantly over the base plan price.
- Server time and ongoing attention. Self-hosted n8n requires a VPS ($6-$20/month), SSL configuration, updates, and occasional troubleshooting. It is not a heavy time cost, but it is not zero either. Factor your time into the total cost comparison with Make.
- Downtime is your problem. Server crashes overnight, your automations miss runs. For workflows where execution gaps have business consequences (lead follow-up, appointment reminders), you need server monitoring or automatic restart configuration. That is additional setup work.
- n8n Cloud narrows the cost gap. n8n Cloud starts at $20/month. For businesses that want n8n's capabilities without server management, that is still cheaper than Make Pro at most volume levels. But the "self-hosted is basically free" math no longer applies.
- Integration gaps cost developer time. When an n8n community node does not exist for your tool, you build the HTTP Request integration yourself. That takes hours. If you are hitting multiple gaps, weigh that time cost against Make's native connector coverage.
Real cost comparison at small business scale. A service business running 20 active scenarios with moderate execution volume (say, 3,000 total scenario runs per month at an average of 8 modules each):
- Make Pro ($16/mo, 10,000 ops): 3,000 runs x 8 modules = 24,000 operations. You are 2.4x over the Pro cap. Teams plan at $29/mo gets you 10,000 ops; you would need additional op packs or an upgrade. Real cost: $40-$60/month.
- Self-hosted n8n on a $10/mo VPS: Annual cost: $120. Zero execution limits. No operation counting.
- n8n Cloud Starter ($20/mo): Annual cost: $240. Still well under Make at comparable volume.
The savings are real once you hit moderate scale. The question is whether your team has the technical capacity to run self-hosted, or whether n8n Cloud gives you enough savings to justify the switch from Make.
07 · Real-World Use Cases
How businesses actually use each platform.
Abstract comparisons do not close decisions. Here is what Make vs n8n looks like in practice.
The agency on Make
15 clients, 20 active scenarios, non-technical ops manager
Client onboarding form triggers a Make scenario: create HubSpot contact, generate a project folder in Google Drive, post a Slack notification, and add the client to an email welcome sequence. Clean four-module scenario. Runs twice a week per client on average. Total monthly cost: well inside Make's Core plan at $9/month. No developer involvement, no server management. It just runs.
The MSP on self-hosted n8n
Hundreds of ticket workflows daily, sensitive client data
A managed IT provider routes support tickets through n8n: an AI agent node classifies ticket severity, assigns it to technicians based on skill tags, updates their PSA via API, and sends status notifications to clients. Runs thousands of times per month. Client data never leaves their server. Monthly cost: $12 for a Hetzner VPS. Make would run this but the operation count alone would put them at $60+ per month, and client data would leave their infrastructure.
The consultant who switched
Hit Make's operation wall, migrated core workflows to n8n
Started on Make, grew to $29/month on the Teams plan, hit operation limits repeatedly on reporting and CRM sync workflows. Moved high-volume scenarios to n8n Cloud at $20/month. Kept Make for two scenarios that use niche connectors n8n does not have. Combined monthly cost dropped from $29 to $26, with no more operation ceiling anxiety on the workflows that mattered most.
The hybrid approach is underrated. Make and n8n are not mutually exclusive. Many growing businesses keep Make for visual, moderate-volume scenarios where its native connectors save time, while running n8n for high-volume, AI-heavy, or data-sensitive workflows. You capture the cost advantages of n8n without abandoning the apps Make connects natively.
If you are considering n8n, a reasonable migration path is: start with n8n Cloud on your highest-cost Make scenarios, validate that n8n handles them correctly, then decide whether the volume justifies self-hosting or whether n8n Cloud pricing works long-term.
Is Make.com free to use?
Make.com has a free plan that includes 1,000 operations per month and access to most integrations. Operations in Make are counted differently than Zapier tasks: each action a module performs is one operation, not each step in a scenario. The free plan is generous enough to test a dozen workflows. Paid plans start at $9/month for 10,000 operations. n8n's self-hosted version has no operation limits at all.
Do I need a developer to use n8n?
Not necessarily, but setup requires some technical comfort. n8n has a visual canvas builder that non-developers can use once it is running. The initial lift is the barrier: you need to provision a server, install n8n via Docker or npm, configure SSL, and set up a domain. That part takes 1-2 hours and requires familiarity with a command line. Make.com requires zero infrastructure work by comparison.
Can n8n do everything Make can?
For most business workflows, yes. n8n has native integrations for 400+ apps and can connect to anything with an API via HTTP Request nodes. Make has 1,200+ native app connectors. For popular tools like Google Workspace, HubSpot, Slack, and Stripe, both platforms cover them well. Where Make wins is breadth of native connectors. Where n8n wins is depth: custom code nodes, AI agent capability, and zero execution limits on self-hosted.
Which is better for AI-powered automations?
n8n has a clear edge here. It ships first-class AI agent nodes, LangChain integration, and the ability to connect to OpenAI, Anthropic, and local models running on Ollama. You can build multi-step agents with memory and tool use directly in the workflow canvas. Make has added some AI integrations, but they feel like add-ons rather than a core design principle. If AI-native workflows are your goal, n8n is the stronger foundation.
How does Make pricing compare to n8n at scale?
Make charges per operation. A 10-module scenario firing 500 times a month costs 5,000 operations. At Make's Core plan ($9/month, 10,000 ops), that is fine. Scale to 30 scenarios with moderate volume and you are looking at $29-$59/month on Make. Self-hosted n8n on a $10/month VPS runs unlimited workflows at no extra cost. The savings become significant quickly once you are running a real automation stack.
What happens if my self-hosted n8n server goes down?
Your workflows stop until the server is back up. That is the core tradeoff of self-hosting. Make's infrastructure is managed cloud with 99.9% uptime guarantees. If your automations are time-sensitive (appointment reminders, lead follow-up), factor in server monitoring costs or consider n8n Cloud instead. n8n Cloud starts at $20/month and gives you managed reliability without self-hosting burden, though it narrows the cost advantage over Make.
Can I migrate from Make to n8n without rebuilding everything?
Not with a direct import tool, but the migration path is manageable. n8n and Make share similar visual canvas paradigms, so experienced Make users typically pick up n8n's interface quickly. The bigger lift is rebuilding each scenario as an n8n workflow, reconnecting credentials, and testing outputs. For a business with 10-20 active scenarios, expect a weekend of work. Most teams migrate their highest-cost scenarios first, validate the outputs, then move the rest.
Related Reads
More on automation platforms and tools.
Zapier vs n8n
The household name vs the open-source challenger. Full comparison.
Zapier vs Make
The two biggest cloud automation platforms, fully compared.
AI Automation Cost for Small Business
What it actually costs to automate your operations end to end.
Automation ROI for Small Business
How to calculate what automation is actually worth to your business.
Automation Pricing for Service Businesses
What agencies charge and how automation pricing is structured.
Best AI CRM for Small Business
The full shortlist for CRMs that play well with automation stacks.
Pricing
Want this handled for you?
See the current Fractional AI Exec tiers. Three monthly retainers and a custom AI knowledge base add-on.
See pricing →Skip the platform debate entirely.
We'll build your
automations
for you.
Tell us what you are trying to automate. We will pick the right platform, build the workflows, and make sure they actually run. No Make operation bills catching you off guard, no server headaches.
Book Your Free Call