n8n
Maken8n vs Make (Integromat): Self-Hosted vs Cloud Automation (2026)
Quick Verdict
Choose n8n if...
Best for technical teams running high-volume or data-heavy workflows — open source, unlimited runs, full control.
Choose Make if...
Best for non-technical teams and operations leaders who want polished automation without engineering overhead.
The n8n vs Make debate really comes down to one trade-off: do you want unlimited workflow runs on infrastructure you manage, or a polished cloud product that bills you per operation? Both tools let you automate workflows across hundreds of apps. Both support visual, node-based building. Both are serious alternatives to Zapier for teams who've outgrown its pricing model. But they're built on fundamentally different philosophies — and the right choice depends almost entirely on how you think about cost, control, and engineering ownership.
We've run both tools in production. n8n shines when you need long-running workflows, heavy data transformations, or tight control over where your data goes. Make shines when you need rapid deployment, polished UI for non-technical teammates, and a catalog of pre-built integrations that just work. The usual mistake is picking based on pricing headlines — "free and open source" or "cheaper than Zapier" — without thinking about the total cost of ownership over 12-24 months.
This comparison breaks down how n8n and Make actually differ on pricing, features, integrations, complexity, and use-case fit. Both sit in our broader workflow automation category, and if you're also evaluating Zapier or other alternatives, see our best Zapier alternatives guide for the wider field.
The TL;DR: choose n8n if you're technical, run high volume, or need data sovereignty. Choose Make if you're non-technical, value UI polish, or need a tool that scales without ops work. Most teams benefit from trying both in parallel for 2 weeks — the free tiers make this effectively free.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Visual Workflow Editor | ||
| 400+ Integrations | ||
| Code Flexibility | ||
| Native AI Capabilities | ||
| Self-Hosting | ||
| Queue Mode & Scaling | ||
| Community Templates | ||
| Enterprise Security | ||
| Error Handling & Retries | ||
| Visual Scenario Builder | ||
| 3,000+ App Integrations | ||
| Advanced Logic & Routing | ||
| AI Agents & AI Integrations | ||
| Real-Time Execution Logs | ||
| Webhooks & API Access | ||
| Templates Library | ||
| Team Collaboration | ||
| Security & Compliance |
Pricing Comparison
| Pricing | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Free Plan | ||
| Starting Price | €24/month | $10.59/month |
| Total Plans | 4 | 5 |
n8n- Self-hosted only
- Unlimited executions
- Unlimited workflows
- All integrations
- Community support
- 2,500 executions/mo
- 5 concurrent executions
- All integrations
- Unlimited users
- 14-day free trial
- 10,000 executions/mo
- Team collaboration
- Advanced debugging
- All integrations
- Unlimited users
- 40,000 executions/mo
- Priority support
- Advanced permissions
- All integrations
- Startup discount available
Make- 1,000 credits/month
- Visual scenario builder
- 3,000+ app integrations
- 15-minute minimum run interval
- Unlimited active scenarios
- 10,000 credits/month
- 1-minute minimum run interval
- Unlimited active scenarios
- Webhooks & API access
- HTTP modules
- AI agents
- 10,000 credits/month
- Priority execution
- Custom variables
- Full-text execution logs
- Everything in Core
- 10,000 credits/month
- Team roles & permissions
- Shared scenario templates
- Priority execution
- Everything in Pro
- Custom credit volumes
- SSO & SCIM
- Audit logs
- Enterprise app integrations
- Advanced security controls
- Overage protection
- 24/7 enterprise support
Detailed Review
n8n is the developer-first automation platform that lets you run unlimited workflows on your own infrastructure. Written in TypeScript and open-sourced under the Sustainable Use License, it's the first real open-source Zapier alternative that's actually pleasant to use. You get a visual workflow builder, 500+ native integrations, JavaScript code nodes for custom logic, and the ability to self-host everything — meaning no per-operation fees, no data residency concerns, and no vendor lock-in. For teams running 10,000+ workflow executions per month, self-hosted n8n often costs 10-50x less than equivalent Make or Zapier plans.
What n8n does particularly well is complex, data-heavy workflows. Long-running jobs that process thousands of items, workflows that branch based on dynamic logic, or automations that need to transform data in ways pre-built tools can't — all of these are n8n's sweet spot. The Code node (JavaScript or Python) handles what visual builders can't, and the HTTP node integrates with any API, documented or not. For technical teams, this flexibility is the killer feature.
The honest downsides: self-hosting requires real engineering attention. You'll manage Docker deployments, database backups, upgrade paths, and scaling decisions. The UI is good but less polished than Make — the learning curve for non-technical users is steeper. And while the integration count is growing, Make still has more pre-built connectors for niche SaaS tools. If you want n8n's flexibility without the ops burden, n8n Cloud starts at $20/month.
Pros
- Self-hosted Community Edition is genuinely free — no operation limits, no hidden costs
- Code node (JavaScript/Python) handles custom logic impossible in pure visual tools
- Long-running workflows, large data processing, and complex branching are first-class
- Open-source means full control, no lock-in, and transparent roadmap
- Active community builds custom nodes for tools that lack native integrations
Cons
- Self-hosting requires ongoing engineering time for updates and maintenance
- Non-technical users find the UI less approachable than Make's
- Native integration count (~500) lags Make's catalog
- Cloud version's entry pricing isn't dramatically cheaper than Make's
Make
Visual automation platform to build and run complex multi-step workflows without code
Make (formerly Integromat) is the cloud-first automation platform that prioritizes polish, breadth, and ease of use. With 1,800+ native app integrations, a genuinely visual scenario builder, and detailed execution logs that make debugging accessible to non-technical users, Make has become the default choice for marketing teams, operations leaders, and solo founders who want workflow automation without engineering overhead. The scenario builder feels more like a flowchart than a developer tool, which is exactly why non-technical teammates can build and maintain their own workflows.
Pricing is where Make shines on the low end and struggles on the high end. The free tier gives you 1,000 operations per month — enough to automate real workflows for a small business. The Core plan ($10.59/month) bumps that to 10,000 operations, and the Pro plan ($18.82/month) adds 10,000 more plus priority support. But because every workflow step counts as an operation, high-volume use cases blow past these limits fast — a lead-enrichment workflow processing 1,000 leads per day would exhaust 30,000 operations in a month, pushing you into $50-100/month pricing.
The other notable Make strengths: the integration catalog is dramatically broader than n8n's, error handling is visual and well-designed, and scenario scheduling/queuing is built-in with no extra configuration. The limitations: complex custom logic is harder than n8n (no inline code by default, though they've added code modules), and you're fully dependent on Make's infrastructure — no self-hosting option ever.
Pros
- 1,800+ pre-built integrations cover nearly every major SaaS tool
- Visual scenario builder is approachable for non-technical users
- Detailed execution logs and error handling make debugging easy
- Built-in scheduling, queuing, and retry logic work out of the box
- Free tier (1,000 ops/month) is genuinely usable for small automations
Cons
- Every step counts as an operation — high-volume workflows get expensive fast
- No self-hosting option, so data residency and long-term costs are fixed
- Custom code is possible but feels bolted-on compared to n8n's first-class Code node
- If your volume is predictable and high, Zapier Teams or n8n self-hosted often costs less
Our Conclusion
Neither tool is universally better. They serve different users with different pain points, and both execute their chosen philosophy well.
Choose n8n if:
- You have developers on the team who can run self-hosted infrastructure (or pay for n8n Cloud)
- Volume is high — 10,000+ workflow runs per month would cost significant money on Make's pricing
- You need to handle sensitive data and prefer to keep it on your own infrastructure
- Workflows are long-running, data-heavy, or require complex branching logic
- You want flexibility to modify the platform itself (it's open source)
Choose Make if:
- Your team is non-technical and needs a visual tool that just works
- You want a catalog of 1,800+ pre-built app integrations without configuration overhead
- Volume is predictable and moderate (under 10,000 operations/month)
- Rapid deployment matters more than unit economics
- You prefer not to think about infrastructure, scaling, or updates
Pricing reality check: n8n's "free" self-hosted claim is real but incomplete — you'll spend 2-5 hours per month maintaining it, which is meaningful engineering time. Make's "cheap entry pricing" is real but climbs fast: a team running 15,000 operations/month on Make's Teams plan ($29/month for 10,000 operations, plus overage) quickly reaches $60-150/month. Run the math with your actual volume.
A practical test: spend one Saturday building the same three real workflows in both tools. You'll know within 4 hours which feels like your long-term home. For related reading, see our best workflow automation tools guide and self-hosted SaaS alternatives for the broader DIY infrastructure conversation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is n8n really free forever if I self-host?
Yes, n8n's Community Edition is open source under the Sustainable Use License and free to self-host. The honest asterisk: you'll pay in engineering time for hosting, updates, database maintenance, and scaling. For most teams, that's worth it — for some, it's not. n8n also offers a paid cloud version if you want the product without the ops.
Does Make have unlimited operations on any plan?
No. Every Make plan is metered by "operations" — each action a scenario takes counts as one operation. Even the Platinum enterprise plan has operation limits (just very high ones). High-volume workflows can make Make significantly more expensive than Zapier at scale, despite Make's cheaper headline pricing.
Which tool has better integrations in 2026?
Make has more pre-built integrations (1,800+ apps) with higher polish. n8n has fewer native integrations (~500) but excellent HTTP and generic connectors, plus an active community building custom nodes. For obscure SaaS tools, Make wins. For APIs that don't have a pre-built integration, n8n's HTTP flexibility is better.
Can I migrate workflows between n8n and Make?
Not automatically — there's no import/export that preserves workflows across the two tools. Both export to JSON, but the data models differ enough that you'd need to rebuild each workflow. Budget 2-5 hours per non-trivial workflow if you're migrating in either direction.
Which is better for AI workflows with LLMs?
n8n has a more developer-friendly AI node system (including native LangChain integration and agent workflows). Make added strong OpenAI and Anthropic support, and its UI is easier for non-technical users building AI workflows. For complex multi-step AI agents, n8n wins. For simple AI-in-a-workflow automations, Make is often faster to deploy.
What happens if n8n goes out of business?
Because n8n is open source, your self-hosted instance continues running indefinitely. You own the code, the data, and the workflows. This is a genuine advantage for risk-averse teams. If Make shuts down, your workflows stop — you'd need to rebuild everything elsewhere.
Which has better debugging and error handling?
n8n's execution view is slightly better for debugging — you can see full data flow between nodes, re-run from any step, and inspect raw JSON at each point. Make's scenario execution history is solid but less granular. Both support error-handling branches natively. For complex debugging, n8n edges ahead.