comparison

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:

Zapier:

  • 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

Power Automate:

  • 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

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.

Written & reviewed by Rafal Fila · Last updated:

Tools Mentioned

Related Guides

guide

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.

comparison

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.

comparison

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.

Related 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.

Common Questions

Can you automate a platform with no API using Zapier?

Not as a proper Zapier app. Zapier's help centre, updated 29 May 2026, says a private app can be built "for any service with a public API", and its fallbacks for a missing app are email parsing, RSS, webhooks, asking Zapier to add the app, or using a different app. Those let a no-API platform tell a Zap that something happened; none of them lets a Zap act inside the platform. The Zapier Agents Chrome extension can "run actions" on a page open in your own browser (help article updated 27 April 2026), but that is hands-on help, not a reusable Zap step.

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, though. In synthetic AutomationAtlas tests that day, an AI extract step's "Human review" and "Supervisor Agent" switches were both off by default, and the builder accepted the same role as a form's submitter and its approver.

What is Moxo?

Moxo AI (app.moxo.com) is a process orchestration platform from Moxo, formerly Moxtra, for work where several parties, approvals and documents meet. You build templates of human steps, AI steps and automations, each run is a Flow with its own data and status, and outsiders act through account-free Magic Links. Its only published price is Team, and the AI agents start on the custom-quoted Scale plan (moxo.com/pricing, 15 September 2026). It is not Moxo Classic, the older app.

How much does Moxo cost in 2026?

Moxo's only published price is Team: $500 a month in the monthly view or $5,000 a year in the yearly view, for 100 flows and $100 of AI a year with unlimited seats (moxo.com/pricing, 15 September 2026). Scale (500 flows and $500 of AI a year) and Enterprise are custom quotes. There is no free plan, no published overage rate and no stated trial length, and the dollar AI allowance has no published conversion to the credits Moxo's product logs.