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
n8n
Workflow automation for technical teams
Workflow AutomationMake
Automate your work with visual workflow builder and AI agents
Workflow AutomationActivepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
Workflow AutomationAutomatisch
Open-source Zapier alternative
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
Best Human-in-the-Loop Automation Platforms 2026
Eight platforms are ranked here on a single mechanism: how a person enters an automated path, and what the system can prove afterward about the decision they made. Moxo scores 7.7 and ranks first; Camunda 8 scores 7.2, Microsoft Power Automate 7.1, Pega 6.9, n8n 6.7, Zapier 5.9…
Best Automation Platforms for AI Orchestration 2026
This ranking answers one question: how many real business applications can an AI agent act on out of the box? It evaluates nine platforms as of August 2026 on the reach they give an agent, not on the workflow logic they can express. That boundary is deliberate, because two…
Dive Deeper
Moxo vs Gumloop in 2026: Texting the Client, or Building the Agent
Gumloop (founded 2023) builds AI agents a company's own staff run; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, runs processes that wait on people outside the company. Gumloop wins three rounds to two: the way in, per-tool gating and a priced overage. Moxo wins on…
Moxo vs Relay.app in 2026: Where Relay's Approval Workflows Can Go Next
Relay.app, founded in 2021, shut down in September 2026 and deleted every account, workflow and run history; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, is one destination for its human-in-the-loop users. Relay.app takes two rounds, Moxo one, and vendor risk is a draw…
Moxo vs Workato in 2026: The Integration Estate, or the Approval Inside It
Workato, founded in 2013, is an enterprise integration platform whose Workflow apps add human tasks to recipes; Moxo, whose predecessor Moxtra was co-founded in 2012, ships the human step itself. Workato wins three rounds to two: connector reach, change control and the way in…