Comparison · Make.com vs n8n
Make.com vs n8n: which automation tool should you pick?
TL;DR
Pick Make.com when the team is non-technical, the workflows are short, and you do not want to think about hosting. Pick n8n when cost matters at scale, you want self-hosting for data privacy, or the workflows have real branching logic where a code node beats fifteen drag-and-drop modules. For a small team running 5-20 workflows, Make.com is faster to start; for a growing team running 50+, n8n usually wins on cost and flexibility.
How they compare, dimension by dimension
Make.com (formerly Integromat) versus n8n — eight to nine dimensions that actually change the decision.
| Dimension | Make.com | n8n | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setup time | Minutes (cloud) | Minutes (cloud) / hours (self-host) | ← |
| Pre-built integrations | ~1800 | ~400 (growing) | ← |
| Self-host option | No | Yes (Docker, k8s) | → |
| Pricing model | Per operation | Per workflow execution (cloud) / free (self-host) | → |
| Cost at scale (10k+ ops/day) | $$$ | $ (self-host) / $$ (cloud) | → |
| Code node / custom logic | Limited | JavaScript + Python | → |
| AI node depth (LLM calls, embeddings) | Good | Excellent — first-class | → |
| Learning curve for non-technical staff | Gentle | Moderate | ← |
| Debugging / observability | Good | Strong (execution history, retry) | → |
When to pick which
Pick Make.com if
- The user building the workflow is non-technical (ops, marketing, support).
- You need an obscure integration (Make has the longer connector list).
- You will run fewer than 5,000 operations a month and want zero ops overhead.
- You want a visual-only tool with no JavaScript escape hatch.
Pick n8n if
- Cost matters — self-hosted n8n is effectively free at the scale most SMBs run at.
- Data privacy or compliance requires self-hosting (HIPAA, GDPR strict, internal-only).
- Workflows involve real branching logic, loops, or LLM chains a Code node handles better.
- You are building AI agent workflows — n8n has stronger LLM + vector-store integrations.
Our take
We ship both for clients. Make.com for "the marketing team wants to push form submissions to HubSpot and Slack"; n8n for "we want an LLM agent that classifies inbound emails, drafts replies, and queues them for human review". The default question is not "which is better" but "who is going to own this workflow in six months". Pick the tool that person can actually maintain.
Common questions
- Is n8n really free if I self-host?
- Yes for the community edition, which covers most needs. n8n charges for the enterprise edition (SSO, advanced permissions, SOC2 audit support) and for n8n Cloud. Self-host costs are your server (a $20-40/month DigitalOcean droplet runs a lot of workflows).
- Can I migrate workflows from Make.com to n8n?
- Not automatically — they have different module schemas. The conceptual translation is straightforward (trigger → steps → output) but you rebuild each workflow by hand. Plan 30-60 minutes per workflow for a clean rewrite.
- What about Zapier?
- Zapier wins on integration count and is the gentlest learning curve, but the pricing scales worst of the three. For a team doing more than ~10 active workflows, Zapier becomes the expensive option fast. We rarely recommend it for new builds.
- Which one handles AI workflows better?
- n8n, by a clear margin in 2026. First-class LangChain integration, native vector store nodes (Pinecone, Qdrant, pgvector), conversational memory primitives, and a code node where you can call any LLM directly. Make has AI features but treats them as add-on connectors rather than core primitives.
- Do you self-host n8n for clients or use n8n Cloud?
- Both. Self-host for clients with data residency or compliance requirements; n8n Cloud when the team wants zero ops. The cost crossover is around 500 workflow executions a day — below that, cloud is fine; above, self-hosted starts to pay back.