n8n and Make are both serious alternatives to Zapier — but they suit different teams and use cases. Here's a direct comparison covering self-hosting, pricing, AI support, and when to choose each.
n8n and Make are the two most capable alternatives to Zapier. Both use a visual canvas. Both handle complex multi-step workflows. Both are significantly cheaper than Zapier at volume. But they are built around different assumptions about who is using them and what they need.
n8n is built for technical teams that want full control. Self-hosting is a first-class option. Code (JavaScript and Python) runs natively inside workflows. The AI integrations are deep. The complexity ceiling is effectively unlimited.
Make is built for broader adoption. It is cloud-only, no-code, and has a cleaner onboarding experience. It handles complex workflows well — better than Zapier — but its ceiling is lower than n8n's when you hit the limits of what a no-code canvas can express.
| Plan | n8n (self-hosted) | n8n.cloud Starter | Make Free | Make Core | |---|---|---|---|---| | Price | ~$5–15/mo (server) | ~$20/mo | Free | $9/mo | | Executions | Unlimited | 2,500/mo | 1,000 ops/mo | 10,000 ops/mo | | Code support | Yes | Yes | No | No | | Self-hostable | Yes | No | No | No |
At volume, self-hosted n8n is dramatically cheaper than Make. At low volume, Make's free tier is hard to beat. For teams that want managed cloud without self-hosting, n8n.cloud and Make Core are comparable in price.
This is where n8n has a clear advantage.
n8n has native nodes for OpenAI, Anthropic, Google AI, and others. It supports AI agents with tool use, memory, and multi-step reasoning. You can write code to handle any AI logic that the built-in nodes do not cover. For AI-powered workflows — where an LLM reads data, makes a decision, and triggers different paths — n8n's model is significantly more capable.
Make has AI integrations but they are more surface-level: you can call an AI API and use the response, but the depth of AI-native workflow logic is limited compared to n8n.
n8n's self-hosted version is genuinely production-grade. Companies run it on their own infrastructure, keep all workflow data on their servers, and pay only server costs.
Make has no self-hosting option. All data processes through Make's cloud. For businesses with strict data residency requirements — particularly in finance, health, or legal — this is a disqualifying factor for Make.
Onboarding. Make's interface is more polished and the initial setup is faster than n8n, particularly for non-developers. If your team is building automation without dedicated developers, Make's lower friction matters.
Visual clarity. Make's circular canvas, with data flowing visually between modules, is intuitive once learned. For people who are allergic to code but want sophisticated automation, Make's no-code canvas goes further than Zapier without requiring the technical depth n8n can demand.
Specific integrations. Make's 1,000+ integrations include some tools n8n lacks. If you use a specific SaaS that Make supports but n8n does not, that is a practical differentiator.
AI-powered workflows. For building automation that involves LLM reasoning, n8n is the better foundation.
Self-hosting and data control. No data leaves your infrastructure. This matters in regulated industries.
Code flexibility. When the visual interface cannot express what you need, JavaScript or Python can. Make has no equivalent.
Cost at volume. Self-hosted n8n's flat server cost beats Make's per-operation pricing at scale.
Complexity ceiling. Very complex workflows — conditional logic trees, recursive structures, custom data transformations — are more naturally expressed in n8n.
Choose n8n if:
Choose Make if:
WhatWill AI builds on n8n for client automation and AI agent projects. Book a free discovery call to find out what we can build for your business.
n8n can be self-hosted on your own server (free, aside from server costs) and supports JavaScript and Python code inside workflows. Make is cloud-hosted only, has no code support, but has a more polished visual interface and requires less technical setup. n8n has a higher complexity ceiling and better AI integration; Make is more accessible for non-technical teams.
Yes. n8n has native nodes for major AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google), supports LangChain-style agent workflows, and allows code inside workflows for custom AI logic. Make has AI integrations but they are more limited in depth and flexibility. For AI-powered automation, n8n is the stronger platform.
Self-hosted n8n is the cheapest option by far — you only pay for server costs ($5–15/month) with no per-workflow or per-execution pricing. Make's free tier offers 1,000 operations/month, with paid plans starting at $9/month for 10,000 operations. At high volume, self-hosted n8n wins decisively. At low volume, Make's free tier is attractive. n8n.cloud (managed) is comparable to Make's pricing.
No. Make is a cloud-hosted service only. All your workflow data passes through Make's infrastructure. For businesses with data residency requirements, n8n's self-hosted option is the only viable choice between the two.
Make's canvas interface is generally considered easier to pick up than n8n's. Both use a visual, node-based design, but Make's smoother UI and more polished onboarding make the initial experience easier. n8n has improved significantly in recent versions and is accessible for non-developers using the hosted version, but the self-hosted setup adds technical friction.
WhatWill AI builds and runs AI systems for Australian businesses. Book a free 30-minute discovery call — we’ll tell you exactly what’s worth building for your situation.