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.
The Bottom Line: Migrating from Make to self-hosted n8n cut tooling cost from $348/mo to about $12/mo for a DTC ecommerce client, but credential and webhook URL recreation consumed roughly 40% of the three-week project — the right call for high-volume scenarios, the wrong call for fewer than ~10 simple Zaps.
The Client and the Starting Point
A DTC ecommerce brand selling skincare across Shopify, Klaviyo, Gorgias, and a 3PL warehouse running on ShipStation. The team was 11 people, with one operations lead owning automation. Over two years they had built up 23 Make scenarios covering order routing, abandoned-cart handoffs, refund-tag automation, ShipStation-to-Shopify sync, Gorgias macro triggers, and a few experimental campaigns. They were on Make Teams at $348/month and were running at roughly 240,000 operations/month, comfortable but trending up.
The driver for migration was not cost. It was a single repeated incident: a Make rate-limit timeout silently dropped order tags during a flash sale, and the team needed deterministic retry semantics they could fully control. They asked us to evaluate self-hosted n8n as the new substrate.
Plan vs Reality
We scoped three weeks. Week 1: stand up n8n on a Hetzner CX21 VPS, port the five highest-volume scenarios, run dual-active for verification. Week 2: port the remaining 18, validate side-by-side, cut over. Week 3: clean up, document, train the operations lead.
Week 1 went mostly to plan. n8n on Docker behind Caddy, Postgres for execution data, daily restic backups to a Hetzner Storage Box. Five scenarios ported, all green by Friday.
Week 2 ran long. The blocker was unexpected: not the logic, the connections.
What Took 40% of the Project Time
Each Make scenario depended on a pile of OAuth credentials, webhook URLs registered with third-party tools, and ShipStation API keys with specific scopes. None of those carry over. Every Shopify webhook has to be re-pointed at the new n8n endpoint. Every Klaviyo and Gorgias OAuth has to be re-authorized. Each ShipStation API key has to be regenerated. We logged the time: 38% of total project hours went into credential and webhook recreation, double-checking scope, and verifying nothing was being delivered to the old Make endpoints. There is no shortcut.
The second time-sink was data-shape drift. Make's built-in iteration and aggregation modules behave slightly differently from n8n's SplitInBatches and Merge nodes around empty arrays and null fields. Three of the 23 scenarios had subtle behavior that depended on Make's specific semantics. We rewrote those flows rather than try to mimic Make's edge cases.
Editor's Note: We deployed self-hosted n8n on a single Hetzner CX21 (~$5.83/mo for the VPS, plus a Storage Box for backups, total around $12/mo) for an 11-person DTC skincare brand. Twenty of the 23 ported scenarios moved over without logic changes; three had to be rewritten because of differences in how Make and n8n handle empty arrays. The honest caveat: the operations lead now spends ~45 minutes/week on VPS upkeep (n8n upgrades, backup verification, log review) that simply did not exist on Make.
What Worked
- Cost. Direct tooling cost fell from $348/month to about $12/month. At 240k operations/month the difference compounds quickly.
- Retry control. n8n's explicit retry-on-fail with exponential backoff replaced the silent Make rate-limit behavior. Verified by replaying a controlled rate-limit storm.
- Versioned workflows. All 23 scenarios live in Git as JSON exports, deploy via a small CI step. Rollbacks are now a
git revertaway. - Local development. The operations lead now runs n8n locally to test changes before pushing to production. That was not possible with Make.
What Did Not Work
- Make Datastores have no clean n8n equivalent. We replaced them with Postgres tables, but that added a dependency the operations lead did not previously have to think about.
- Make's built-in error notifications are better. n8n requires you to wire your own Slack/email notifications on failure. We standardized on a single error-handler workflow but it took a half-day to design.
- Cold-start latency on n8n is higher when an executor process spins up. For low-frequency scenarios it does not matter; for the order-tagging scenario triggered on every checkout, we kept a worker warm.
- Documentation drift. During the migration, we discovered three scenarios were already broken on Make and had been failing silently for weeks. Migration did not cause that; it surfaced it.
Would We Do It Again
Editor's Note: For this DTC client, yes — the deterministic retry behavior and Git-versioned workflows mattered more than the cost saving. But we would not recommend this migration for a brand with fewer than ten scenarios. Below that threshold, Make's no-VPS, no-backup-config, no-OAuth-rewiring proposition almost always wins on total time-to-value, even at $9-29/month.
Caveats and Disclaimers
All numbers above are from a single project. Costs and behavior of Make and n8n may differ at other scales. As of May 2026, n8n is fair-code (Sustainable Use License); commercial restrictions apply for some hosted SaaS use cases. Verify the current license before standing up n8n for a multi-tenant offering.
Tools Mentioned
Make
Automate your work with visual workflow builder and AI agents
Workflow Automationn8n
Workflow automation for technical teams
Workflow AutomationGorgias
Ecommerce helpdesk built for Shopify with ticket automation, macros, and revenue attribution on support conversations.
Customer Support AutomationKlaviyo
Ecommerce marketing automation platform for email and SMS with deep Shopify integration and predictive analytics.
Marketing AutomationRelated Guides
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.
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.