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
- What are the best workflow automation tools for technical writers in 2026?
- What are the best AI-native automation tools in 2026?
- What are the best automation tools for finance and AP teams in 2026?
- What are the best automation tools for solo founders in 2026?
- What are the best automation tools for nonprofits in 2026?
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 AutomationCalendly
Scheduling automation platform for booking meetings without email back-and-forth, with CRM integrations and routing forms for lead qualification.
Workflow AutomationRelated Rankings
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.
Best No-Code Automation Platforms in 2026
A ranked list of no-code automation platforms in 2026. The ranking covers visual workflow builders that allow non-engineering teams to connect SaaS apps, route data, and add conditional logic without writing code. Entries cover proprietary cloud platforms (Zapier, Make, Pipedream, IFTTT) and open-source visual builders (n8n, Activepieces). Scoring reflects integration breadth, pricing accessibility, visual editor ease, reliability and error handling, and self-hosting availability.
Dive Deeper
Migrating 23 Make Scenarios to Self-Hosted n8n: a 3-Week Breakdown
Anonymized retrospective of a DTC ecommerce brand migrating 23 Make scenarios to a self-hosted n8n instance over three weeks. Tooling cost dropped from $348/month on Make Teams to roughly $12/month on a Hetzner VPS, but credential and webhook recreation consumed about 40% of total project time.
Trigger.dev vs Inngest 2026: OSS Durable Runners Compared
Trigger.dev (2022, London) is a fully Apache 2.0 durable runner with task-based authoring, machine-size selection, and first-class self-host. Inngest (2021, San Francisco) is a developer-first event-driven step platform with an open-source dev server and a managed cloud (50K step runs/month free, $20/month Hobby). This 2026 comparison covers license, programming model, pricing, observability, and self-host options.
Inngest vs Temporal 2026: Durable Functions vs Durable Workflows
Inngest (2021, San Francisco) is a developer-first durable functions platform with TypeScript and Python SDKs, 50,000 step runs/month free, and Hobby pricing from $20/month. Temporal (2019) is the heavyweight durable workflow engine with seven-language SDK coverage, Cassandra-backed scale, and Cloud pricing from roughly $200/month at low volume or $2.5-4.5K/month self-host. This 2026 comparison covers programming model, pricing, scale ceiling, and operational footprint.