Make (formerly Integromat) is a cloud-only visual automation platform: no servers to manage, a polished canvas UI, and 1,500+ integrations that non-technical ops teams can use without writing code. n8n is MIT-licensed, self-hostable, and free to run on your own infrastructure — developers get JavaScript execution inside workflow nodes and unlimited workflows with no per-operation cost. If you have a technical person who can maintain a server, n8n is almost always cheaper. If your team is non-technical and needs visual workflows without infrastructure overhead, Make is the right call.
Quick comparison
| Feature | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | Free plan | Free plan |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | No | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| G2 rating | Not listed | Not listed |
| Best for | non-technical ops and marketing teams who want visual multi-step automation with no infrastructure overhead and a polished drag-and-drop interface | developers and technical ops teams who want self-hosted, zero-marginal-cost automation with JavaScript support, full data control, and unlimited workflows |
| Starting price | Free: 1,000 ops/month. Core: $9/month for 10,000 ops. | Self-hosted: free forever. n8n Cloud: $24/month for starter. |
| Free plan | Yes — 1,000 operations/month, full multi-step scenarios | Yes — self-hosted version is free with no limits |
| Open source | No | Yes — MIT licensed |
| Self-hostable | No — cloud only | Yes — Docker, npm, or cloud |
| Deployment model | Cloud SaaS only | Self-hosted or n8n Cloud |
| Best for | Non-technical teams needing visual no-code automation | Developers and technical ops teams wanting full control |
| Primary risk | Operation counts scale up fast with complex multi-step scenarios. | Requires internal ownership for hosting, upgrades, and security. |
Connector depth and integration coverage
Make has roughly 1,500 native app integrations with polished trigger and action configurations — connectors for Slack, HubSpot, Airtable, Google Workspace, Notion, and hundreds more have full point-and-click setup with good documentation. n8n has around 400 built-in nodes, which covers mainstream tools well but leaves gaps for niche or regional SaaS apps. The key nuance: n8n's HTTP Request node lets developers connect to any REST API without a dedicated integration, and the Code node lets you write arbitrary JavaScript to transform or route data. For non-technical users who need pre-built connectors, Make wins by volume. For developers comfortable making API calls, n8n's gap narrows considerably because you can build your own integrations without waiting for the vendor to ship one.
Builder experience and learning curve
Make's canvas-based visual builder is genuinely powerful and more accessible than it looks. You drag modules onto a canvas, connect them with lines, and see data flow visually — branching logic, error routes, and iterators are all visible at once. First-time users with no coding background can typically build meaningful scenarios in under two hours. n8n's node canvas is also visual, but it leans harder on technical knowledge: understanding JSON data structures, writing JavaScript expressions, and knowing how API authentication works is nearly required for non-trivial workflows. n8n does have a low-code mode for simpler flows, but the default interface assumes technical familiarity. For teams where non-developers own automations, Make is meaningfully more approachable. For developers, both are comfortable and n8n's expression language is more powerful.
Error handling and observability
n8n's error handling is more sophisticated and configurable. You can attach Error Trigger nodes to catch failures from any workflow, configure per-node retry logic, and route failures into separate notification workflows — all without leaving the canvas. Execution history shows the full JSON data payload at every node, making debugging surgical and precise. Make has solid error handling: you can set up error routes inline, configure resume behavior after failures, and view execution history with data at each step. But n8n, especially when self-hosted, gives you complete control over logging, alerting, and error routing — you can pipe execution logs to your own monitoring stack. For production workflows where failures have real business consequences, n8n's error model is more robust, particularly for teams that already operate observability infrastructure.
Pricing model and cost at scale
Self-hosted n8n is free with no operation or execution limits — you pay only for server infrastructure, which can be as low as $5-10/month on a VPS or free on your existing Kubernetes cluster. n8n Cloud starts at $24/month for a starter tier. Make's Core plan is $9/month for 10,000 operations; the Pro plan is $16/month for 10,000 operations with priority execution. Operations compound quickly: a 10-module Make scenario processing 500 records per day uses 5,000 operations daily, which blows through the Core plan in two days. Make's pricing feels affordable until workflows reach production volume — at which point costs scale linearly with usage. For high-volume or complex multi-step automations, self-hosted n8n eliminates marginal cost entirely. Even n8n Cloud is typically cheaper than Make Pro at comparable workflow complexity.
Enterprise controls and data sovereignty
n8n self-hosted gives you the strongest possible data sovereignty story: nothing leaves your infrastructure. Credentials, workflow data, and execution history stay on your servers. n8n's enterprise tier adds SSO via SAML, LDAP authentication, log streaming to external systems, and external secrets management — meaningful controls when self-hosted. Make is cloud-only, which means all data transits Make's infrastructure. Make does have organization-level access controls, team accounts, and role-based permissions, but it can't match n8n's data residency options for teams with strict compliance requirements. For companies in regulated industries or with data residency mandates, self-hosted n8n is the only credible option between these two.
Execution reliability and scheduling control
Make is a managed cloud service with strong uptime and predictable execution scheduling — you choose run frequency from every minute to monthly, and Make handles the infrastructure. For teams without DevOps resources, that reliability is the point: there's no server to patch, no queue to manage, no database to back up. n8n self-hosted gives you more control but also more responsibility: you manage uptime, updates, database backups, and queue infrastructure. n8n's queue mode with Redis supports high-throughput parallel execution, which Make can't match for bursty workloads — but only if you have the engineering capacity to run it. n8n Cloud is reliable for most use cases. For non-technical teams who prioritize reliability without ops overhead, Make's managed model is the safer default.
Pricing deep-dive
Make
- Free: 1,000 operations/month, unlimited scenarios, full multi-step support
- Core: $9/month for 10,000 operations/month
- Pro: $16/month for 10,000 operations with priority execution
- Teams and Enterprise: custom pricing with advanced admin controls
n8n
- Self-hosted: free forever, MIT license, no operation limits
- n8n Cloud Starter: $24/month for 2,500 active workflow executions
- n8n Cloud Pro: $60/month for 10,000 active workflow executions
- Enterprise: custom pricing with SSO, LDAP, log streaming
Pricing verdict: n8n wins decisively on price if you can self-host. Running n8n on a $10/month VPS eliminates Make's entire cost structure and removes per-operation limits. For non-technical teams that need a managed service, Make's Core plan at $9/month for 10,000 operations is genuinely affordable — but that limit evaporates quickly when multi-step scenarios hit production volume. A 10-module scenario running 1,000 times/day uses 10,000 operations daily, which exhausts the Core plan in one day. Make's pricing model rewards simple, low-volume workflows; n8n's self-hosted model rewards high-volume, complex workflows. If budget is the primary constraint and you have engineering capacity, self-hosted n8n wins by a wide margin.
How to migrate from Make to n8n
What real users say
Make: Make users consistently praise the visual canvas for making complex logic readable and maintainable — being able to see branching flows and data transformers at a glance is a genuine differentiator. The pricing is frequently cited as fair for small to mid-size teams. Recurring complaints: operation counts hit limits faster than expected when workflows scale to production, some connectors lag behind Zapier on new API versions, and the UI can feel cluttered on large scenarios with many modules.
n8n: n8n users praise the zero-marginal-cost model for self-hosted deployments, the ability to write JavaScript expressions inline for complex transformations, and the transparency of seeing full data payloads at every node. The open-source community is active with nearly 200,000 GitHub stars. Common complaints: the learning curve is steeper than Make for non-technical users, some integrations lack depth compared to Make or Zapier, and self-hosting adds operational overhead that requires dedicated engineering attention.
Sources: Pattern synthesized from catalog data, vendor positioning, and public review themes; verify on G2 or Capterra before quoting directly.
Final verdict
Choose Make if...
- Your automations are owned by non-technical ops or marketing staff who need visual point-and-click workflows without understanding JSON, APIs, or server management.
- You need a managed cloud service with predictable uptime and no infrastructure overhead — no server to patch, no database to maintain, no queue to configure.
- Your workflow volume is moderate and the $9-16/month Core or Pro plan covers your operation count without forcing a significant upgrade.
Choose n8n if...
- You have a developer or technical ops person who can deploy and maintain n8n on a VPS or cloud server — the self-hosted version eliminates Make's per-operation cost entirely at any volume.
- Your workflows handle sensitive data with strict residency requirements — self-hosted n8n keeps all data, credentials, and execution history on your own infrastructure.
- You need code-level flexibility inside automation nodes: custom JavaScript, complex API calls, data transformations, or logic that doesn't fit Make's visual module model.
Consider neither if: Consider Zapier if your team is non-technical and needs the broadest possible app library (6,000+ integrations) and fastest path from idea to live automation. Consider Pipedream if you're a developer who wants a code-first, version-controlled workflow tool with a generous free tier. Consider Activepieces if you want an open-source, self-hostable Make alternative with a more beginner-friendly interface than n8n.