How does Make compare to n8n for workflow automation?
Quick Answer: Make is best for non-technical users who want a visual cloud-based workflow builder with competitive pricing (from $9/month billed annually for 10,000 operations). n8n is best for technical teams who want to self-host (free with unlimited workflows) or need code-level flexibility with JavaScript and Python nodes. Make has more integrations (1,800+ vs 400+), while n8n offers open-source control and zero per-execution costs when self-hosted.
Make vs n8n: Complete Comparison for 2026
Make and n8n are two of the most popular workflow automation platforms, but they serve different needs. Make is a cloud-hosted visual automation builder known for its intuitive interface and competitive pricing. n8n is a self-hostable, open-source platform built for technical teams who want maximum flexibility and control.
Key Differences at a Glance
| Feature | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Cloud-only | Self-hosted + Cloud |
| Open source | No | Yes (fair-code) |
| Pricing model | Operations-based | Executions-based (cloud) / Free (self-hosted) |
| Free tier | 1,000 ops/month | Unlimited (self-hosted) |
| Integrations | 1,800+ | 400+ |
| Code support | Limited (JavaScript in text parser) | Full (JavaScript and Python nodes) |
| Target user | Business users, ops teams | Developers, technical teams |
| Visual builder | Excellent (canvas-based) | Good (flow-based) |
| Error handling | Built-in error routes | Try/catch with error trigger |
| Data transformation | Strong built-in functions | Code nodes for full flexibility |
Pricing Comparison
| Plan | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Free | 1,000 ops/month, 2 scenarios | Unlimited (self-hosted) |
| Starter | $9/month (10,000 ops) | $20/month (2,500 executions) |
| Mid-tier | $16/month (10,000 ops, more features) | $50/month (10,000 executions) |
| Enterprise | Custom pricing | Custom pricing |
Make uses operations-based pricing, where each action in a workflow counts as one operation. n8n cloud uses execution-based pricing, where each workflow run counts as one execution regardless of the number of steps. For workflows with many steps, Make can cost more per run.
When to Choose Make
- You prefer a visual, drag-and-drop interface: Make's canvas-based builder is widely regarded as the best visual workflow editor in the market
- The team is non-technical: Make is easier to learn for business users and operations teams
- Organizations need strong data transformation: Make's built-in text, math, date, and array functions handle most transformations without code
- Organizations want competitive pricing: Make's free tier (1,000 ops) and paid plans are generally cheaper than Zapier
- Organizations need complex branching: Make handles parallel execution, routers, and error routes natively
When to Choose n8n
- Organizations want to self-host: n8n is free to self-host with unlimited workflows and executions, ideal for data privacy and cost control
- The team is technical: n8n's code nodes (JavaScript and Python) give developers full programming flexibility
- Organizations need custom integrations: n8n makes it straightforward to build custom nodes or call any API via HTTP request nodes
- Organizations want open-source: n8n's source code is available on GitHub with 50,000+ stars and an active community
- You are cost-sensitive at scale: Self-hosted n8n has zero per-execution costs, making it the cheapest option for high-volume automation
Verdict
Choose Make if organizations want the best visual automation experience for non-technical users with competitive cloud pricing. Choose n8n if organizations want self-hosting capability, open-source flexibility, or need code-level control over existing workflows. Both are excellent Zapier alternatives that outperform it in specific areas.
Related Questions
Related Tools
Make
Automate your work with visual workflow builder and AI agents
Workflow Automationn8n
Workflow automation for technical teams
Workflow AutomationZapier
Automate workflows between apps without coding—connect 9,000+ tools with simple, reliable automation.
Workflow AutomationActivepieces
No-code workflow automation with self-hosting and AI-powered features
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.