Make and n8n are two well-known automation platforms that help teams connect applications and cut down on repetitive work. Both can streamline processes, but they are built with different types of users in mind. Make highlights a visual builder and a large library of pre-built integrations, while n8n focuses on open-source flexibility and developer control.
The decision often comes down to cost, ease of use, and how much customization or scalability a team needs. Smaller groups may prefer quick setup and ready-made templates, while technical users often value the freedom to build and host their own workflows. Larger organizations look at reliability, performance, and pricing as automation use expands.
What is n8n?
n8n is an open-source automation tool designed for teams that want full control over their workflows and data. A startup with in-house developers, for example, might self-host n8n to connect internal systems and extend workflows with custom code.
Strengths
- Open-source with a free self-hosted option.
- Highly customizable with custom nodes and API support.
- Flexible deployment in cloud or on-premise environments.
- Strong fit for developers and technical users needing advanced logic.
Drawbacks
- Requires technical knowledge to set up and manage.
- Smaller library of pre-built integrations compared to some competitors.
- Maintenance overhead when self-hosted.
- Less beginner-friendly for non-technical users.
Read our review: n8n Review: Is This Open-Source Automation Tool Worth It?
What is Make?
Make is a cloud-based automation platform built around a visual drag-and-drop editor. It is designed to help teams connect apps quickly, whether for simple two-step workflows or more complex, multi-app processes. A marketing team, for instance, might use Make to send new Facebook Ads leads directly into HubSpot and Slack without touching code.
Strengths
- Intuitive visual builder that is easy to learn.
- Large library of 2,500+ pre-built integrations.
- Handles complex, multi-step workflows effectively.
- Offers ready-made templates for quick setup.
Drawbacks
- Pricing increases as workflows scale, since every operation counts toward usage.
- Less flexible than open-source alternatives like n8n.
- Advanced error handling and customization options can feel restrictive.
Read our review: Make Review (2025): Is It the Best Workflow Automation Tool for Your Business?
n8n vs Make: Feature comparison
| Factor | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Free self-hosted option; paid cloud plans based on executions and users. | Free plan available; paid tiers scale by number of operations and data. |
| Integrations | 350+ pre-built nodes; strong API and custom code support. | 2,500+ pre-built integrations with extensive templates. |
| Ease of Use | Designed for technical users; requires setup and knowledge. | Visual drag-and-drop builder; accessible for both technical and business users. |
| Customization | Highly flexible; supports custom nodes, self-hosting, and API-first design. | Limited compared to open-source; customization primarily through pre-built modules. |
| Scalability | Scales with server resources; ideal for teams managing infrastructure. | Cloud-based scaling; handles complex multi-step workflows reliably. |
n8n vs. Make: Pricing comparison
Pricing is one of the first details most teams look at when evaluating automation tools. n8n takes a mixed approach, offering a free self-hosted option for teams that want to manage infrastructure themselves, along with cloud tiers priced by the number of executions. Make uses a credit-based model, where every operation counts toward a monthly limit. Both platforms include free plans but scale costs differently as workflows grow.
n8n pricing tiers
| Plan | Monthly Pricing | Annual (per month) | Executions Included |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-hosted / Community | $0 licensing | $0 licensing | Infra-dependent |
| Starter | $24 | $20 | 2,500 |
| Pro | $60 | $50 | 10,000 |
| Business | $800 | $667 | 40,000 |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | Custom |
Make pricing tiers
| Plan | Monthly Pricing | Annual (per month) | Credits Included |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | $0 | 1,000 |
| Core | $10.59 | $9 | 10,000 |
| Pro | $18.82 | $16 | 10,000 |
| Teams | $34.12 | $29 | 10,000 |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | Custom |
Make plans start at 10,000 credits and scale up to 2 million, with pricing increasing by usage.
Executions vs. Credits: What’s the difference?
One of the biggest differences between n8n and Make is how they measure usage. n8n counts executions, while Make measures credits, which track the number of operations in a workflow. This difference can have a big impact on cost, especially for workflows with many steps.
n8n uses executions. An execution is a full workflow run from start to finish, no matter how many steps it includes. Imagine a sales team with a workflow that takes a new lead, enriches it with LinkedIn data, scores it, and then sends it to HubSpot and Slack. In n8n, that entire process counts as just one execution. If it runs 100 times in a month, it uses 100 executions. This makes n8n’s pricing model easier to predict for complex workflows with many steps or branches.
Make uses credits. Each step in a workflow is counted as an operation, and most operations cost one credit. Using the same sales example, pulling the lead, enriching it, scoring it, adding it to HubSpot, and sending it to Slack would count as five credits. If the workflow runs 100 times in a month, it would use 500 credits. Some advanced actions, like processing large batches of data, can consume more than one credit, which is why Make measures usage in credits rather than just operations.
| Example workflow: Facebook Ads->Hubspot->Slack | n8n (Executions) | Make (Credits) |
|---|---|---|
| Steps in workflow | 1 | 2 |
| Runs per month | 100 | 100 |
| Total usage counted | 100 executions | 200 credits |
For simple automations with just a few steps, Make’s credit-based model can work well. For larger workflows with many actions, n8n’s execution-based model often makes overall costs easier to predict.
n8n vs. Make integrations
Integrations are what make automation platforms useful. Make offers more ready-to-use connections, making it easy for teams to link popular apps right away. n8n has fewer built-in nodes but makes up for it with flexibility. Teams can connect directly to APIs, build custom nodes, or use options shared by the open-source community. The choice often comes down to whether a team values plug-and-play convenience or the ability to shape integrations to fit their exact needs.
Integrations: Side-by-side comparison
| Category | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Number of integrations | Hundreds of built-in nodes plus community-made additions. | 2,500+ ready-made connectors across common SaaS tools. |
| Custom connections | Full API access through webhooks, HTTP requests, and custom nodes. | Limited to module options but cover most everyday workflows. |
| Ease of setup | More technical;requires API knowledge or custom nodes. | Drag-and-drop builder with pre-configured triggers and actions. |
| Community support | Open-source community builds and shares new nodes. | Large user base with official support and documentation. |
| Best fit | Teams that want flexibility and control. | Teams that need wide app coverage and quick setup. |
Ease of use: Side-by-side comparison
How quickly a team can get started often matters as much as the features themselves. Make is designed to be approachable, with a visual drag-and-drop builder and a large library of templates that shorten setup time. n8n offers more flexibility but assumes users are comfortable with APIs, logic, and customization. The result is a steeper learning curve, but one that pays off for teams with technical skills.
| Category | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Interface | Visual editor with detailed branching; geared toward technical users. | Drag-and-drop builder with a clean, straightforward layout. |
| Learning curve | Higher; best for users familiar with APIs and scripting. | Lower; accessible for non-technical users. |
| Templates | Fewer built-in templates; depends on customization and community add-ons. | Hundreds of templates available for common workflows. |
| Setup & hosting | Can run in the cloud or be self-hosted; self-hosting adds extra setup work. | Fully managed SaaS; no server setup needed. |
| Best fit | Developers and technical teams who want flexibility and control. | Business users and teams that value simplicity and speed. |
Customization and flexibility
As workflows get more advanced, teams often look for ways to go beyond pre-set options. Make allows customization through its visual modules and templates, which cover most common business needs but stay within the limits of the platform. n8n gives technical teams a wider toolkit, letting them add custom code, connect to any API, and self-host for full control over data and execution.
| Category | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Logic | Advanced branching, loops, and execution control. | Visual paths and conditions for standard workflows. |
| APIs & webhooks | Direct API calls with HTTP nodes and full webhook support. | Webhooks and modules available, but less flexible than raw API calls. |
| Extensibility | Custom nodes, JavaScript functions, and community add-ons. | Limited to pre-defined modules and templates. |
| Data ownership | Full control when self-hosted; data runs on your infrastructure. | Data processed in Make’s managed cloud. |
| Best fit | Developers and technical teams that need deep flexibility. | Teams that want quick customization without heavy coding. |
Scalability and reliability
Scalability and reliability often determine whether an automation platform can support long-term growth. Make provides a fully managed cloud service, where infrastructure, monitoring, and updates are handled for the user. n8n offers similar scalability but places responsibility on the team when self-hosted, since performance and security depend on how the environment is configured. Both approaches can handle large workloads, but the path to achieving that reliability is different.
| Category | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Self-hosted or n8n Cloud; self-hosting requires infrastructure. | Fully managed SaaS; no hosting setup needed. |
| Reliability | Depends on hosting setup and team maintenance. | Uptime, monitoring, and updates managed by Make. |
| Performance | Scales with server resources and configuration. | Consistent execution, but less control over the environment. |
| Maintenance | Ongoing updates and monitoring needed for self-hosted setups. | No maintenance required from the user. |
| Best fit | Teams with technical resources to manage scaling and reliability. | Businesses wanting stable automation without infrastructure work. |
Bottom line: Which should you choose?
Choose Make if your team wants a managed platform with a visual builder and a large set of ready-made connectors. It is a strong fit for small businesses, non-technical teams, and departments that need reliable automation without managing servers or writing custom code.
Choose n8n if your team has technical resources and values flexibility, customization, and full control over workflows. It is well suited for startups with developers, companies that want to self-host and own their data, and teams building automations that go beyond standard templates.
Your decision comes down to what you value more: Make offers speed and simplicity, while n8n provides greater flexibility and room to scale.
