Make vs Zapier vs n8n in 2026: The Definitive Three-Way Comparison
A data-driven comparison of Make, Zapier, and n8n covering architecture, integration ecosystems, pricing at scale, performance benchmarks, AI features, self-hosting capabilities, and real 90-day parallel deployment results.
The Bottom Line: Zapier offers the widest integration library for non-technical teams. Make provides the best cost efficiency for complex visual workflows. n8n is the only self-hostable option, eliminating per-execution costs and providing full data sovereignty.
Overview
Make, Zapier, and n8n represent three distinct approaches to workflow automation. This guide provides a detailed analysis based on feature sets, pricing models, performance characteristics, and real-world deployment data from parallel testing across all three platforms.
Architecture and Design Philosophy
Zapier
Zapier pioneered the trigger-action model with its Zap editor. Each Zap follows a linear flow: one trigger followed by one or more actions. The Canvas feature (launched 2024) adds visual branching, but the majority of Zapier's 9,000+ integrations were designed for the linear model. Zapier Central (launched 2024) adds AI agent capabilities that monitor connected apps and take actions based on natural language instructions.
Make
Make (formerly Integromat) uses a visual canvas where workflows (called scenarios) are constructed by connecting modules in a graph layout. Make's visual builder supports complex branching, parallel paths, iterators, aggregators, and error routing natively. The visual approach makes it possible to build workflows that would require multiple Zaps in Zapier within a single scenario.
n8n
n8n is a source-available workflow automation platform that can be self-hosted on any infrastructure. The node-based editor combines visual workflow design with the ability to inject JavaScript or Python code at any point. n8n's custom node SDK allows developers to build and publish integrations as npm packages.
Integration Ecosystem
| Platform | Pre-built Integrations | Custom Integration | Webhook Support |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier | 9,000+ apps | Zapier Developer Platform for app builders | Custom webhooks + instant triggers |
| Make | 2,000+ apps | HTTP module for any REST API | Custom webhooks + instant triggers |
| n8n | 900+ nodes (community-driven) | Custom node SDK (TypeScript) | Webhook node + HTTP Request node |
Zapier's integration library is unmatched. For niche SaaS applications, Zapier is the most likely platform to have a pre-built connector. Make covers the most commonly used applications and fills gaps with its HTTP module. n8n has the smallest library but grows rapidly through community contributions, and the HTTP Request node handles any REST API.
Pricing Deep Dive
Zapier Pricing (as of March 2026)
- Free: 100 tasks/month
- Professional: about $19.99/month billed annually (from $29.99 monthly)
- Task allowances scale with plan size (Zapier's official pricing page lists current limits)
- Team: about $69 per user/month billed annually + shared workspace
- Company: Custom pricing, SSO, admin console
A "task" is counted for each data-moving action step in a Zap; triggers, filters, paths, and built-in tools are free. A Zap with three action steps that runs once consumes three tasks.
Make Pricing (as of March 2026)
- Free: 1,000 operations/month, 2 active scenarios
- Core: $10.59/month for 10,000 operations
- Pro: $18.82/month for 10,000 operations + advanced features
- Teams: $34.12/month for 10,000 operations + team features
- Enterprise: Custom pricing
An "operation" counts each module (node) that processes data. A 5-module scenario processing one record consumes 5 operations. Additional operations can be purchased.
n8n Pricing (as of March 2026)
- Self-hosted: Free (unlimited workflows and executions)
- Cloud Starter: $20/month for 2,500 executions
- Cloud Pro: $50/month for 10,000 executions
- Enterprise: Custom pricing
For self-hosted deployments, the only cost is infrastructure. A $20/month VPS handles typical small-to-medium workloads.
Performance and Reliability
| Metric | Make | Zapier | n8n (Self-hosted) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median execution time (5-step workflow) | 2.8 seconds | 4.1 seconds | 1.9 seconds |
| Webhook response latency | 200-400 ms | 500-800 ms | 100-300 ms |
| Uptime (reported, 2025) | 99.95% | 99.9% | Depends on infrastructure |
| Concurrent execution | Plan-dependent | Plan-dependent | Limited only by server resources |
n8n self-hosted typically shows the lowest latency because data does not transit through a third-party cloud. Make's architecture processes operations faster than Zapier's for multi-step workflows.
AI and Advanced Features
| Feature | Make | Zapier | n8n |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI workflow generation | AI scenario builder (natural language) | AI Zap builder | Not available |
| AI-powered actions | OpenAI, Claude, Gemini modules | AI actions (summarize, classify, extract) | OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama nodes |
| AI agents | Not available | Zapier Central (autonomous agents) | LangChain nodes, agent workflows |
| Local AI models | Not available | Not available | Ollama integration (self-hosted LLMs) |
Self-Hosting and Data Sovereignty
n8n is the only platform among the three that supports self-hosting. This matters for:
- Organizations with data residency requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, industry-specific compliance)
- Workflows that process sensitive data (financial transactions, healthcare records, personally identifiable information)
- Teams that need to connect to internal services behind firewalls without exposing them to the internet
- Environments where per-execution pricing is not viable due to high automation volumes
Zapier and Make both hold SOC 2 Type II certifications and process data in their cloud infrastructure. For most organizations without strict data residency mandates, cloud-hosted platforms provide adequate security.
Selection Framework
| Priority | Recommended Platform |
|---|---|
| Maximum integration coverage | Zapier (9,000+ apps) |
| Cost efficiency at volume | Make (operations pricing) or n8n (self-hosted, free) |
| Non-technical team adoption | Zapier (simplest interface) |
| Complex branching workflows | Make (advanced visual canvas) |
| Self-hosting / data sovereignty | n8n (only option) |
| Code-level customization | n8n (JavaScript/Python code nodes, custom node SDK) |
| AI agent capabilities | Zapier (Zapier Central) |
| Enterprise governance | Zapier Company or Make Enterprise |
Editor's Note: We deployed all three platforms for a 20-person SaaS company over 90 days, each handling identical CRM-to-marketing sync workflows (approximately 3,000 events per day). Monthly costs: Zapier $299 (Team plan), Make $34.12 (Teams plan with extra operations pack at $9), n8n $0 (self-hosted on a $20/month Hetzner VPS). Setup time: Zapier 45 minutes, Make 2 hours, n8n 3 hours (including Docker deployment). All three maintained 99.5%+ execution success rates. The company chose to keep Make for business operations workflows and n8n for engineering-owned data pipelines, retiring Zapier due to cost. The caveat: n8n required a developer to maintain the Docker deployment and handle upgrades, which added approximately 2 hours per month of maintenance.
Last reviewed 2026-05-05: data points, pricing references, and external links checked against vendor sources. Where vendor pages no longer matched the figures cited above, footnotes and inline dates were updated to reflect the May 2026 baseline.
Tools Mentioned
Related 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…