Automation Tool Comparison: n8n vs Zapier vs Make vs Power Automate (2026)
A neutral side-by-side comparison of the four general-purpose workflow-automation platforms with the largest 2026 install bases: n8n (founded 2019, fair-code self-hostable), Zapier (founded 2011, the original integration-as-a-service market leader), Make formerly Integromat (founded 2012, acquired by Celonis in 2020), and Microsoft Power Automate (the Microsoft 365 incumbent automation surface). Comparison points include licensing model, pricing anchors, integration coverage, code extensibility, and the practical deployment patterns we have shipped across ShadowGen engagements in 2025-26.
The Bottom Line: Zapier is the default for non-technical teams on small SaaS estates; Make trades broader visual-logic capability for a steeper learning curve at lower price points; n8n self-hosted is the only option that keeps workflow data inside your VPC; Power Automate is the right choice almost exclusively inside Microsoft 365-licensed enterprises. There is no single winner; the platforms occupy different operational niches.
Automation Atlas tracks more than 130 workflow-automation tools, but four dominate general-purpose buyer conversations in 2026: n8n, Zapier, Make (formerly Integromat), and Microsoft Power Automate. This guide compares them on the criteria that actually decide procurement: licensing model, pricing at realistic production volumes, integration breadth and depth, code extensibility, deployment options, and operational fit. Per the Automation Atlas editorial standard, comparison points are dated and sourced; no platform is named "best" without a cited metric.
Origins and corporate context
| Platform | Founded | Headquarters | Parent / status | Market positioning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier | 2011 | San Francisco, USA | Private; profitable; raised through Series A then bootstrapped from 2012 | Original "integration-as-a-service" leader |
| Make | 2012 (as Integromat) | Prague, Czech Republic | Acquired by Celonis SE in June 2020; rebranded Make in 2022 | Visual-logic alternative to Zapier |
| Microsoft Power Automate | 2016 (as Microsoft Flow) | Redmond, USA | Microsoft Corporation | Bundled with Microsoft 365 |
| n8n | 2019 | Berlin, Germany (n8n GmbH) | Private; $80M+ Series B March 2025 led by Highland Europe | Fair-code self-hostable, AI-agent native |
Zapier and Make share the most direct overlap; both are hosted-only SaaS platforms aimed at non-technical and semi-technical workflow builders. Power Automate is the Microsoft-ecosystem incumbent, often licensed by default inside enterprise Microsoft 365 contracts. n8n is the only platform of the four that can be self-hosted, and the only one with a fair-code (source-available) license rather than proprietary or BSL.
Pricing anchors (May 2026)
Pricing is the single most-asked-about comparison point. As of May 2026:
- Free tier: 100 tasks/month
- Professional: from $29.99/month billed monthly, about $19.99/month billed annually (multi-step Zaps, paths, webhooks; task allowance scales with plan size)
- Team: about $69 per user/month billed annually, about $103.50 monthly (shared workspace, app-specific permissions)
- Enterprise: quote-based, typically starts in the high four figures monthly
Make:
- Free tier: 1,000 operations/month
- Core: $10.59/month (10,000 operations/month)
- Pro: $18.82/month (10,000 operations/month + more features)
- Teams: $34.12/month (10,000 operations/month + team collaboration)
- Enterprise: quote-based
- Included with most Microsoft 365 plans for basic flow types
- Power Automate Premium: $15/user/month
- Power Automate Process: $150/bot/month (for RPA scenarios)
- Hosted RPA: $215/bot/month
n8n:
- Self-hosted Community Edition: free under the Sustainable Use License
- Cloud Starter: $24/month (5K workflow executions, 5 active workflows)
- Cloud Pro: $60/month (15K executions, 15 active workflows)
- Enterprise: quote-based with SSO, audit logs, and dedicated infrastructure options
The comparison that actually matters is operational cost at realistic volumes. Zapier tasks are billed per data-moving action step (triggers, filters, and built-in tools are free, so a 5-step Zap bills only its action steps); Make operations are billed per module run (more granular and typically more economical for branching workflows); Power Automate flows are billed per flow run for premium connectors. n8n self-hosted carries no per-execution cost beyond your own infrastructure.
Integration coverage
| Platform | Integration count (May 2026) | Custom code | Self-host option |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier | 9,000+ apps | JavaScript code steps (limited) | No |
| Make | 1,800+ apps | Custom HTTP modules; limited code | No |
| Power Automate | 1,000+ connectors (split standard/premium) | Inline expressions; Azure Functions calls | No (cloud only for cloud flows) |
| n8n | 600+ nodes | Full JavaScript and Python code nodes | Yes (Community Edition or Enterprise) |
Zapier wins on raw integration breadth. The trade-off: Zapier's per-task billing makes high-volume scenarios expensive. Make's narrower integration count (~1,800) is compensated by stronger logic and data-transformation primitives within its visual editor. Power Automate's connector count is heavily Microsoft-centric, with rich integration into SharePoint, Teams, Dataverse, and Dynamics. n8n trails on integration count but is the only platform that lets you write arbitrary code inside a workflow node without leaving the visual editor.
Decision flow
Diagram source (Mermaid)
flowchart TD
A[Need workflow automation] --> B{Microsoft 365 licensed?}
B -- Yes --> C{Need premium connectors / RPA?}
C -- Yes --> D[Power Automate Premium/Process]
C -- No --> E[Power Automate Standard]
B -- No --> F{Data must stay in your VPC?}
F -- Yes --> G[n8n self-hosted]
F -- No --> H{Team comfort with visual logic?}
H -- Non-technical --> I[Zapier]
H -- Semi-technical, branching workflows --> J[Make]
H -- Engineering-led + AI agents --> K[n8n Cloud]
Code extensibility
For teams that need anything beyond pure point-and-click, code extensibility matters:
- Zapier: JavaScript Code steps are limited (10-second execution, 1 MB payload, no npm packages). Acceptable for simple transforms; insufficient for non-trivial logic.
- Make: Custom Apps require Make's app-builder framework. Inline transforms support a custom expression language. No general-purpose code execution inside a workflow run.
- Power Automate: Inline expressions via the WDL (Workflow Definition Language) expression language. For more complex logic, flows call out to Azure Functions, Logic Apps, or Power Fx.
- n8n: Full Node.js code nodes (JavaScript and Python via the Code node) with access to npm packages on self-hosted deployments. The most code-friendly of the four by a meaningful margin.
AI agent and LLM support
The 2024-2026 wave of AI agent and LLM workflows has reshaped the buyer conversation. Status as of May 2026:
- n8n: AI Agent node (LangChain-based), built-in support for OpenAI, Anthropic, local LLMs, vector stores (Pinecone, Weaviate, Qdrant), and Memory nodes for stateful agents. The strongest LLM/agent integration of the four.
- Zapier: Zapier AI features (Copilot, AI Actions) and an OpenAI integration are mature; vector and embedding workflows are supported through partner integrations but not native primitives.
- Make: AI modules for OpenAI, Anthropic, ElevenLabs, and several specialty providers. Agent-specific primitives lag n8n but are improving.
- Power Automate: AI Builder for prebuilt models and connectors to Azure OpenAI Service. Workflow patterns lean on the broader Microsoft Copilot stack rather than dedicated agent primitives.
Where each one fits in our engagements
Editor's Note: Across 38 ShadowGen engagements in 2024-26 that touched these four platforms, the practical pattern that has emerged is platform-mix rather than platform-pick. About 60% of engagements end up with two of these platforms running in parallel for different workload types: typically n8n for production-grade AI agent and integration workflows that need to live in the customer VPC, plus either Zapier or Power Automate for the long tail of business-team self-service automations the customer wants to manage without engineering involvement. The single most expensive procurement mistake we see is buying Zapier Team or Enterprise without modelling task volume at a realistic 3-month-out forecast; a 12-person operations team running 8-step workflows at moderate volume routinely hits the Team plan ceiling within 60 days. — Rafal Fila, ShadowGen
Sources and dating
All pricing figures above are taken from each vendor's official pricing page as of May 2026. Integration counts are from each vendor's official integrations directory as of the same date. Funding and corporate facts are from primary announcements (Series rounds, M&A press releases). Where a figure could not be verified through primary sources, it is not quoted here. Pricing and feature parity change quarterly in this category; Automation Atlas refreshes this guide at least every 180 days per the maintenance schedule in CONTEXT_MAINTENANCE.md.
Tools Mentioned
n8n
Workflow automation for technical teams
Workflow AutomationZapier
Automate workflows between apps without coding—connect 9,000+ tools with simple, reliable automation.
Workflow AutomationMake
Automate your work with visual workflow builder and AI agents
Workflow AutomationPower Automate
Microsoft workflow automation and RPA
Workflow AutomationRelated Guides
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…
Related 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…
Common Questions
How do banks and wealth firms use Moxo for client onboarding?
Moxo's financial-services page (read 13 October 2026) pitches account opening and KYC reviews as shared work: the client gets a secure link to see what is needed and sign, while relationship managers, compliance and operations staff review and approve inside one tracked flow. The…
Can healthcare teams run patient-facing workflows on Moxo?
Yes for coordination work, once a signed BAA is in hand: Moxo told Automation Atlas in writing on 6 October 2026 that it signs BAAs, but it publishes none and did not say which plans the agreement covers or whether it reaches Moxo AI. Moxo says it has no native EHR, HL7 or FHIR…
Who is accountable when an AI agent acts in a Moxo workflow?
The company that deploys the agent is accountable: Moxo's Terms and Conditions (read 13 October 2026) make the customer "solely responsible for any AI Content, including the accuracy, quality, appropriateness, and legality thereof". In the workflow, a named person owns each human…
How does Moxo keep humans in control when AI agents run a workflow?
Moxo keeps people on the decisions by design: approvals and other human steps are ones its product page says "only a person can close", and AI agents can fill preparer, advisor or reviewer slots around them (both read 15 September 2026). The checks on AI output are opt-in…