How do you migrate workflows from Make to n8n?
Quick Answer: Migrate from Make to n8n in 8 steps: export Make blueprints as JSON reference, inventory all scenarios by priority and complexity, map Make modules to n8n nodes, recreate credentials (OAuth/API keys), rebuild workflows using n8n expressions, update webhook URLs in external systems, run both platforms in parallel for 1-2 weeks, then cut over. Credential recreation and webhook updates typically consume 40% of total migration time.
Why Migrate from Make to n8n
Common reasons for migrating from Make to n8n:
- Cost reduction: Make Teams plan at $348/month vs n8n self-hosted at approximately $10-15/month for infrastructure
- Data sovereignty: Self-hosted n8n keeps all data on the infrastructure
- Execution limits: Make charges per operation; n8n self-hosted has no execution limits
- Code flexibility: n8n supports custom JavaScript and Python in every node
- Community extensions: n8n's open-source ecosystem allows custom node development
Step 1: Export Make Blueprints
Before building anything in n8n, document existing Make setup:
- Navigate to each scenario in Make
- Click the three-dot menu → "Export Blueprint"
- Save the JSON blueprint file for reference
- Screenshot each scenario's visual layout for reference during rebuilding
Blueprints are not directly importable into n8n, but they serve as a detailed reference for the modules, data mappings, and logic used in each scenario.
Step 2: Analyze Your Scenario Inventory
Create a migration inventory spreadsheet:
| Scenario Name | Modules | Triggers | Webhook URLs | External Systems | Priority | Complexity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lead capture | 5 | Webhook | 1 | Typeform, HubSpot | High | Low |
| Invoice sync | 8 | Schedule | 0 | QuickBooks, Slack | High | Medium |
| Data cleanup | 12 | Schedule | 0 | Google Sheets, API | Medium | High |
Prioritize by business impact and complexity. Migrate critical, simple scenarios first to build confidence.
Step 3: Map Make Modules to n8n Nodes
Most Make modules have direct n8n equivalents:
| Make Module | n8n Node | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| HTTP module | HTTP Request | Nearly identical functionality |
| Router | IF / Switch | n8n uses IF nodes for branching |
| Iterator | Split In Batches | Processes items one at a time |
| Aggregator | Merge | Combines multiple items |
| Set Variable | Set | Maps and transforms data |
| Sleep | Wait | Pauses execution |
| Text parser | Code node (regex) | Use JavaScript regex in Code node |
| JSON parse/stringify | Code node | Native JSON handling |
| App modules | Equivalent app nodes | Most popular apps available |
For Make modules without n8n equivalents, use the HTTP Request node with the service's API directly, or check n8n's community nodes.
Step 4: Recreate Credentials
Credentials cannot be transferred between platforms. For each connected service:
- Create new OAuth tokens or API keys in the external service
- Configure credentials in n8n's credential manager
- Test each credential before building workflows
For OAuth services (Google, Microsoft, Salesforce), you may need to create new OAuth applications in each provider's developer console.
Step 5: Rebuild Workflows
For each scenario in your migration inventory:
- Create a new workflow in n8n
- Add the trigger node (matching the Make scenario trigger)
- Build the node chain, following the Make blueprint as reference
- Map data fields using n8n expressions (syntax differs from Make)
- Add error handling branches where the Make scenario had error routes
Key Syntax Differences
| Concept | Make Syntax | n8n Syntax |
|---|---|---|
| Reference previous step | {{1.field}} |
{{ $json.field }} |
| Current item in loop | {{item.field}} |
{{ $json.field }} |
| Date formatting | formatDate() |
{{ $json.date.toISO() }} or Luxon |
| Conditional | if() function |
IF node or {{ $json.field ? "yes" : "no" }} |
Step 6: Update Webhook URLs
If any Make scenarios used incoming webhooks, external systems are sending data to Make-specific URLs. After rebuilding in n8n:
- Note the new n8n webhook URLs for each workflow
- Update webhook URLs in all external systems (form builders, payment providers, CRM webhook settings)
- Verify each external system sends test data to the new n8n URL
This is often the most time-consuming step, especially when webhook URLs are configured in multiple external systems.
Step 7: Run in Parallel
Before cutting over completely:
- Keep Make scenarios active
- Activate n8n workflows in parallel
- Compare outputs for 1-2 weeks
- Verify data consistency between both platforms
- Monitor n8n execution logs for errors
For scenarios with side effects (creating records, sending emails), route n8n workflows to a test environment or add a "dry run" flag during the parallel period.
Step 8: Cut Over
Once parallel testing confirms parity:
- Disable Make scenarios one by one (do not delete them yet)
- Monitor n8n for 48 hours
- After 2 weeks of stable n8n operation, export Make blueprints as a final backup
- Cancel the Make subscription
- Keep exported blueprints archived for reference
Migration Timeline
| Scenarios | Estimated Duration | Consultant Days |
|---|---|---|
| 5-10 simple | 1 week | 3-5 days |
| 10-25 mixed | 2-3 weeks | 8-15 days |
| 25-50 complex | 4-6 weeks | 15-25 days |
Editor's Note: We migrated 23 Make scenarios for a client over 3 weeks with one consultant. The breakdown: credential recreation and webhook URL updates across 8 external systems consumed approximately 40% of the total time. The actual workflow rebuilding was straightforward — most Make modules mapped cleanly to n8n nodes. The most complex scenario (a 15-module data transformation pipeline with iterators and aggregators) took a full day to rebuild and test. Monthly cost dropped from $348 (Make Teams plan) to approximately $12 (Hetzner VPS running n8n). The client's operations team needed 2 hours of training on n8n's interface and a 1-page reference guide for monitoring executions. Six months post-migration, they have not needed external help for day-to-day workflow management.
Related Questions
Related Tools
Activepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationAutomatisch
Open-source Zapier alternative
Workflow AutomationBardeen
AI-powered browser automation via Chrome extension
Workflow AutomationCamunda
Open-source workflow and process automation platform using BPMN.
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
Best AI-Powered Automation Tools in 2026
AI-powered automation tools integrate artificial intelligence features — natural language workflow creation, intelligent data mapping, predictive actions, and LLM-based content generation — into their automation platforms. As of March 2026, most major automation platforms have added AI capabilities, but the depth and practical utility of these features varies significantly. This ranking evaluates 8 automation tools on the practical value of their AI features, not marketing claims. The evaluation focuses on whether AI features reduce manual configuration, accelerate workflow creation, and improve outcomes versus doing the same work without AI. Tools that use AI as a core differentiator (not just a checkbox feature) score higher.
Best Automation Tools for Startups in 2026
Startups need automation tools that provide immediate value at minimal cost, with room to scale as the team grows. The best startup automation tools offer generous free tiers, fast time-to-value (first working automation within hours, not days), and a clear scaling path from 5-person team to 50-person company. This ranking evaluates 8 automation platforms specifically for startup relevance as of March 2026. The evaluation prioritizes free tier generosity, speed from signup to first working automation, scalability as the team and workflow count grow, integration breadth covering the typical startup tech stack (Slack, Google Workspace, HubSpot, Stripe, GitHub, Notion), and total cost at early-stage volumes (under 50,000 tasks per month).
Dive Deeper
Make vs Power Automate in 2026: Visual Flexibility vs Microsoft Ecosystem
A detailed comparison of Make and Power Automate covering visual builders, integration ecosystems, pricing models, AI features, enterprise compliance, and real deployment data from parallel testing.
Zapier vs IFTTT in 2026: Professional Automation vs Consumer Simplicity
A detailed comparison of Zapier and IFTTT covering target audiences, integration ecosystems, workflow complexity, pricing, smart home capabilities, and AI features with real deployment data.
n8n vs Windmill in 2026: Visual Open-Source vs Code-First Automation
A detailed comparison of n8n and Windmill covering architecture, integration approaches, pricing, developer experience, execution performance, and real deployment data from parallel testing.