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 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 neighbouring pages on this site answer different questions. Best Process Orchestration Platforms 2026 scores multi-step process control, error handling and state management. Best AI Agent Platforms 2026 scores building and hosting the agent itself. This page scores the layer between them: the connective tissue that lets an agent already built elsewhere reach the applications a business actually runs on. A platform that leads one of those pages can place low here, and two of them do. Scores derive from application and action catalogue counts, the exposure model each platform uses to publish those catalogues to an agent, setup effort, failure handling and cost per agent action. Every figure was retrieved from a vendor-owned surface on 11 August 2026 unless an earlier date is stated against it.
Best Durable Workflow Engines for Production in 2026
A ranked list of the best durable workflow engines for production deployments in 2026. Durable workflow engines persist execution state to a database so that long-running workflows survive process restarts, deployments, and infrastructure failures. The ranking covers Temporal, Prefect, Apache Airflow, Camunda, Windmill, and n8n. Tools were evaluated on production reliability, developer experience, scalability, open-source health, and documentation quality. The shortlist intentionally mixes code-first engines (Temporal, Prefect, Airflow) with hybrid visual platforms (Camunda, Windmill, n8n) to reflect how production teams actually choose workflow engines in 2026.
Dive Deeper
Client Portals vs Workflow Orchestration Platforms: What Changes When External Parties Act Inside a Process
What changes when a client or supplier has to act inside your process, not just watch it? This guide compares four client portals with four orchestration platforms on how outsiders get in, whether you pay for them and what the audit log records, from vendor sources read 14 and 15 September 2026.
Moxo vs Zapier in 2026: Human Approval Steps, External Participants and Pricing
Moxo and Zapier both put a person in front of an automated decision, from opposite ends: Moxo builds the process out of human steps and attaches AI, while Zapier pauses an automation for a reviewer through its Human in the Loop app. This guide compares approvers, rejection, AI approval, audit logs, governance and pricing, verified 14 and 15 September 2026.
Keystroke vs n8n in 2026: Agent-Built TypeScript vs the Visual Canvas
Keystroke, launched in July 2026 by Y Combinator W24 company Sprint Labs, is a code-first automation platform where AI coding agents write workflows as TypeScript in the user's repository. n8n, founded in 2019, is the most widely deployed source-available visual workflow platform, with 200,000+ users and a $2.5 billion valuation. This comparison covers the agent-authored versus canvas building models, durable execution, licensing (Elastic License 2.0 vs the Sustainable Use License), verified July 2026 pricing including Keystroke's usage metering, and the maturity gap between a days-old platform and an established ecosystem.