When I first migrated our agency's automation stack from Zapier to something more powerful, I evaluated both Make (formerly Integromat) and n8n side by side for six weeks. They target the same problem — connecting apps and automating workflows — but they solve it in very different ways. If you're a freelancer, solo founder, or running a small team, the right choice depends heavily on how technical you are and how much control you want over your infrastructure.
Quick Picks (TL;DR)
- Make — best for non-technical users and teams who want visual, powerful automation without managing servers
- n8n — best for developers and technical teams who want full control, self-hosting, and unlimited automation runs
- Skip both — if your needs are simple, Zapier's polish and support are worth the premium price
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Tool | Best for | Free plan | Starting price | Standout |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Make | Visual automation, non-technical teams | Yes (1,000 ops/mo) | ~$9/mo (verify) | Scenario builder UI + error handling |
| n8n | Developer-controlled, self-hosted workflows | Yes (self-hosted) | ~$20/mo cloud (verify) | Self-hosting, unlimited runs, code nodes |
Make (formerly Integromat)
What it does well
Make's scenario builder is genuinely one of the most satisfying automation UIs I've used. Workflows are laid out visually as connected bubbles — each node represents an action or a data transformation — and you can see data flowing through the pipeline in real time when you test. For someone who thinks in flowcharts, this feels natural in a way that even Zapier's linear steps don't quite match.
What separates Make from Zapier is its sophistication. Built-in data manipulation tools (array aggregators, iterators, text parsers, routers) let you handle complex logic without writing a single line of code. When I built a workflow that pulled leads from a Google Sheet, enriched them via Clearbit, filtered by company size, and then routed different segments to different Slack channels and a CRM — all in one scenario — Make handled it without needing any custom code modules.
Error handling in Make is also a cut above. You can set up dedicated error-handling routes within a scenario, configure retry logic, and get notified on failure through a separate path. In production automations that touch customer data, this matters enormously.
The template library is large and well-organized. For most common use cases — lead routing, ecommerce notifications, CRM syncing, social media scheduling — there's a starting point that gets you 80% of the way there in under ten minutes.
Honest pros:
- Visual scenario builder is the most intuitive of any automation tool I've tested
- Sophisticated data manipulation built-in — no code required for most transforms
- Excellent error handling with dedicated error routes
- Large template library covering most common business workflows
- Operations-based pricing means simple workflows stay cheap
- HTTP and webhook modules make custom integrations straightforward
- Active community with good documentation
Honest cons:
- Operations-based pricing becomes expensive at scale — a single scenario can burn thousands of ops if it's looping through rows
- No self-hosting option — your workflows and data live on Make's servers
- The free plan (1,000 ops/month) disappears fast if you're running anything in production
- UI can become visually cluttered on complex scenarios with many branches
- Debugging errors on large scenarios requires patience — the visual layout helps, but tracing data through 20+ nodes is still tedious
Who should skip Make: If you're processing high volumes of data or running automations that loop through thousands of rows regularly, the operations-based billing will hurt. Calculate your expected monthly ops before committing to a plan.
n8n
What it does well
n8n takes a fundamentally different philosophical position: it gives you maximum control, and in exchange it asks more of you technically. The headline feature is self-hosting — you can run n8n on your own server, your own VPS, or inside Docker, and your workflow data never touches n8n's infrastructure. For agencies handling client data or developers working in regulated industries, this is genuinely valuable.
The workflow editor is node-based like Make's, but it feels more like a developer tool and less like a polished consumer product. That's not a criticism — it's a design choice. n8n exposes more of the underlying data, gives you direct access to JSON at every step, and lets you write JavaScript (or Python) inside "Code" nodes when the built-in transformations don't cut it. When I needed to calculate a complex pricing formula mid-workflow, I dropped into a Code node and wrote it in thirty seconds instead of stitching together five different data manipulation modules.
Self-hosted n8n has unlimited workflow executions — you pay for the server, not the runs. For high-volume use cases, this changes the economics dramatically. An agency running 50,000+ workflow executions per month on Make would pay several hundred dollars; on self-hosted n8n, you're paying $10-20/mo for a VPS.
The n8n cloud option (their hosted version) has per-execution pricing that's more competitive than Make at lower volumes and better for teams who don't want to manage infrastructure. Workflow sharing, version history, and team collaboration features have improved significantly in recent releases.
Honest pros:
- Self-hosting means unlimited executions and full data ownership
- Code nodes (JavaScript/Python) let you handle any logic without workarounds
- Dramatically cheaper than Make at high execution volumes
- Active open-source community with 400+ integrations
- Workflow templates available and growing quickly
- Better for custom/unusual integrations that lack pre-built connectors
- Fair-code license allows modification and internal use without fees
Honest cons:
- Self-hosting requires technical ability — setting up Docker, managing updates, monitoring uptime
- The UI is less polished than Make; complex workflows can look overwhelming
- Debugging error traces is less visual than Make's approach
- Smaller template library for common business workflows compared to Make
- Cloud plan pricing tiers can be confusing to compare against Make
- Some enterprise integrations (Salesforce, SAP) have less mature implementations than Make's
Who should skip n8n: Non-technical users who want a plug-and-play experience without managing a server should use Make. If the words "Docker Compose" make you anxious, n8n's self-hosted option is not for you — and the cloud version's pricing advantage over Make shrinks considerably at lower volumes.
Pricing: The Real Comparison
This is where the two tools diverge most dramatically, and where I've seen the most confusion among people evaluating them.
Make charges per "operation" — roughly one action step in a workflow. A scenario that processes 100 records and runs 8 steps per record consumes 800 operations. The free plan includes 1,000 operations per month. Paid plans start around $9/mo (verify) for 10,000 ops, scaling up from there. For moderate automation needs, Make's pricing is fair. For high-volume loops, it gets expensive fast.
n8n self-hosted is free forever — you pay only for your server. A $6/mo DigitalOcean Droplet runs n8n comfortably for most small teams. n8n cloud starts around $20/mo (verify) and charges per execution with higher limits at each tier. For teams already on the cloud, the calculus is: does the convenience of cloud hosting justify the extra cost over self-hosting? Usually yes, until you hit serious volume.
My rough heuristic: under 10,000 workflow executions per month, compare cloud plans directly. Over 50,000 executions per month, self-hosted n8n almost always wins economically.
How to Choose
The decision comes down to two dimensions: technical comfort and data volume.
If you're non-technical or managing a team where most people are non-technical, Make's visual experience and polished error handling reduce friction every day. The higher marginal cost at volume is often worth paying for the time saved on debugging and setup.
If you're a developer or have a developer on the team, n8n's Code nodes and self-hosting option give you capabilities Make simply doesn't offer. The ability to drop into JavaScript mid-workflow is a superpower when you hit edge cases, which you will.
For solo founders building their first automation stack, Make's free plan and template library provide the fastest path to a working workflow. For a technical agency or startup with consistent high-volume processing needs, self-hosted n8n is hard to beat on economics.
My verdict: After six weeks of parallel testing, I moved most of our client-facing automations to Make (the error handling and visual debugging saved too many hours) and kept our internal high-volume data pipelines on self-hosted n8n. Neither tool is universally better — they're optimized for different users.
FAQ
Can n8n replace Make completely for a non-technical team? Technically yes, practically no. The self-hosted setup and more developer-oriented UI create ongoing friction for non-technical users. Make's cloud offering is genuinely more approachable for teams without a dedicated technical person.
Is Make's free plan enough to start with? For testing and simple personal automations, yes. For anything running in production for a business, you'll hit 1,000 operations quickly. Budget for at least the Core plan from day one if you're using it for real work.
How hard is it to self-host n8n? With Docker installed, you can have n8n running in about 20 minutes following the official docs. Ongoing maintenance (updates, backups) takes about an hour per month for a technically comfortable person. The official n8n documentation has improved significantly and the community is helpful.
Which tool has more integrations? Make has a slight edge in the total count of polished, pre-built app connectors. n8n's community nodes close the gap considerably, and both tools have HTTP/webhook modules that let you connect to anything with an API regardless of whether there's a dedicated node.