n8n vs Make (2026): The Automation Comparison for Developers

Disclosure: TuanOps uses affiliate links. We earn a small commission if you sign up — at no extra cost to you. All verdicts are independent.

The n8n vs Make debate comes down to one question: do you want to own your automation infrastructure, or pay for someone else to run it? I've been running n8n self-hosted for over a year — API connectors, data pipelines, webhook workflows, AI agents. TuanOps also tested Make end-to-end for this comparison. Both are serious tools. The right one depends entirely on your technical comfort level and what you're actually building.

Quick Verdict: n8n vs Make (TL;DR)

n8n Overview

I've been running n8n self-hosted on a Hetzner VPS for over a year. The workflow editor is genuinely powerful once it clicks — the learning curve is real, but so is the ceiling. Once I understood the node-based model, I automated everything from multi-step API pipelines to AI-assisted data processing workflows. The key insight: n8n is infrastructure you own, not a service you subscribe to.

n8n is open-source (fair-code license), which means the self-hosted version is free and runs without execution limits. The code node — which runs arbitrary JavaScript or Python inline — eliminates the "what if there's no integration?" problem entirely. If the service has an API, n8n can hit it. If the data needs transformation, write 10 lines of JS.

Key Features

• Self-hosted: run on any Linux server for €0 in software cost — no execution limits, no per-operation billing
• Code nodes: write JavaScript or Python directly inside workflows for any logic n8n's built-in nodes don't cover
• 400+ integrations — plus HTTP Request node for any REST API, GraphQL endpoint, or webhook
• AI agent builder: LLM nodes, memory, tool use, and multi-agent workflows built into the core platform
• Active open-source community: 60,000+ GitHub stars, template library, frequent releases
• n8n Cloud available if you'd rather skip server management: from €24/mo

Pricing

Pricing below is from our n8n database, read directly from n8n's plans.

• Self-hosted: €0 — open source, unlimited workflows and executions. You pay only for the VPS (a Hetzner CX22 at €5.99/mo runs n8n easily).
• Starter: €24/mo — 2,500 executions/mo, unlimited steps per workflow, managed cloud hosting.
• Pro: €60/mo — custom execution limits, admin roles, audit logs.
• Business: €800/mo — 40,000 executions/mo, SSO, Git-based deployment.

Pros & Cons

• ✅ Self-hosted for €0 — most cost-efficient automation at scale
• ✅ Code nodes (JS + Python) — unlimited extensibility
• ✅ Built-in AI agent workflows with LLM integrations
• ✅ Full data ownership — nothing leaves your infrastructure
• ❌ Steeper learning curve than Make — the node model takes time to click
• ❌ Self-hosting requires server management knowledge
• ❌ Fewer native integrations than Make (400+ vs 1,500+)

Make Overview

Make (formerly Integromat, founded 2016) is the best visual automation tool money can buy at the $10–$35/mo range. In our testing, its scenario editor is genuinely more intuitive than n8n's — the canvas layout, module library, and real-time data flow visualisation make it easier to build complex scenarios without touching code. The 1,500+ integration library is the deepest of any mid-market automation tool.

Where Make stumbles is at scale and for technical users. The credit-based billing model means every operation in every scenario run costs a credit. A 10-module scenario triggered 50 times/day consumes 15,000 credits/month — 50% over Make's Core plan limit. The absence of code nodes means you're always working within what Make's modules can do natively, which isn't always enough for developer use cases.

Key Features

• Visual scenario editor — canvas-based, real-time data flow visualisation, drag-and-drop modules
• 1,500+ pre-built integrations — the widest native library of any mid-market automation tool
• Advanced flow control: routers, iterators, aggregators, error handlers, and rollback
• Data Store (built-in database) for persisting data between scenario runs
• Team features: shared scenarios, version history, role-based access (Teams plan)
• No server management — fully managed SaaS

Pricing

Pricing below is from our Make database, read directly from Make's plans.

• Free: $0 — 1,000 credits/mo, 15-minute minimum trigger interval. Enough for light testing, not production.
• Core: $10.59/mo — 10,000 credits/mo, unlimited active scenarios, 1-minute triggers.
• Pro: $18.82/mo — 10,000 credits/mo + priority execution and custom variables.
• Teams: $34.12/mo — 10,000 credits/mo + team roles and scenario templates.
• Enterprise: Custom — advanced features, dedicated support.

Credit consumption note: each module execution = 1 credit. A scenario with 10 modules, run 5 times/day, consumes ~1,500 credits/month. Complex scenarios with iterators or routers consume more.

Pros & Cons

• ✅ Best visual scenario editor — most intuitive automation UI at this price point
• ✅ 1,500+ native integrations — best coverage for obscure SaaS tools
• ✅ $10.59/mo Core plan undercuts Zapier significantly for the same functionality
• ✅ No server required — managed cloud, zero ops overhead
• ❌ SaaS only — no self-hosting option, data leaves your infrastructure
• ❌ No code nodes — you're limited to what modules can do natively
• ❌ Credit consumption scales with complexity — high-volume workflows get expensive fast
• ❌ 15-minute trigger minimum on free tier limits real testing

Head-to-Head: n8n vs Make

Pricing: Self-Hosting Changes the Equation

At small scale, the cost difference is modest. Make Core at $10.59/mo vs n8n Cloud Starter at €24/mo — Make wins on price for low-volume cloud users. But n8n's self-hosted tier is €0. Deploy it on a Hetzner CX22 (€5.99/mo) and your automation cost is under €6/month for unlimited workflows and executions.

For high-volume automation — hundreds of workflow runs per day — the Make vs n8n self-hosted comparison isn't even close. Make charges per operation regardless of volume; n8n self-hosted charges nothing. If you're running production automation workloads, n8n's self-hosted option makes every other pricing model look expensive.

Integrations: 400 vs 1,500 (and Why It Matters Less Than It Sounds)

Make's 1,500+ integrations genuinely do cover more ground than n8n's 400+. If you need a native integration with an obscure CRM, project management tool, or niche SaaS, Make is more likely to have it already built.

But n8n's HTTP Request node complicates this comparison. Any service with a REST API — which is essentially every modern tool — can be integrated in n8n without a native node. I've connected APIs that have no n8n integration by reading the API docs and building a 5-node workflow around the HTTP Request module. For a developer, this is second nature. For a non-technical user, it's a barrier.

The honest summary: Make's integration advantage is real for non-technical users. For developers comfortable with APIs, n8n's HTTP node effectively levels the playing field.

Make vs n8n Self-Hosted: Technical Flexibility

This is where n8n wins decisively for its target audience. The Code node lets you write JavaScript or Python directly inside a workflow — data transformation, API response parsing, conditional logic, string manipulation. Whatever the built-in nodes can't do, 10 lines of code can.

Make has no equivalent. You can use built-in functions and filters, but you cannot write custom code. For simple automation (connect tool A to tool B when event X happens), this is rarely a problem. For complex data transformation, calculated routing logic, or anything that requires a conditional not expressible in Make's built-in operators, you'll hit the ceiling.

n8n for AI Workflows in 2026

n8n's AI agent builder — LLM nodes, memory, tool use, and multi-agent routing — is a genuine differentiator in 2026. I've built workflows that combine webhook triggers, database lookups, LLM processing, and Telegram notifications into single chains that run without human intervention. Make has some AI module support, but the developer tooling for building agentic workflows is much weaker.

For any team exploring automation as part of an AI strategy — routing support tickets with LLMs, enriching CRM data with AI, building internal chat assistants that trigger workflows — n8n's native AI support is a significant practical advantage over Make.

Which Should You Choose?

• Developer, DevOps engineer, or indie hacker: n8n self-hosted. €0 software cost, code nodes for any logic, AI agent builder, full data ownership. The learning curve pays off within a week.
• Non-technical team or marketing/ops person: Make. The visual editor is the best in the market at this price point, and 1,500+ native integrations means you'll rarely hit a gap.
• Currently paying for Zapier: Switch to either. Make replaces Zapier's UX at a fraction of the cost. n8n replaces Zapier and adds capabilities Zapier doesn't have. Both are the best Zapier alternatives available in 2026.
• High-volume automation (500+ workflow runs/day): n8n self-hosted. Make's per-operation billing makes this tier expensive; n8n's flat hosting cost doesn't scale with usage.
• Team collaboration with non-technical stakeholders: Make. Shared scenarios, role-based access, and the visual editor make it easier for mixed teams to build and maintain workflows without developer involvement.
• Budget-constrained solo project: n8n self-hosted on a cheap VPS. Total cost: under €10/mo including server. Nothing else in the automation market competes at that price with that power.

Our Verdict

For TuanOps readers — developers and indie hackers managing real infrastructure — n8n self-hosted is the default answer. I've run it for over a year across multiple projects and the combination of €0 software cost, code nodes, and the AI agent builder has made it indispensable. The learning curve is real but front-loaded; once the model clicks, building new workflows is fast.

Make is not a worse tool — it's a different tool for a different user. If you're not comfortable with servers or APIs, Make's visual editor is the most polished automation experience in this price bracket. It's also the right pick for teams where non-technical members need to build and edit workflows without developer support.

✅ Recommended for developers and DevOps teams: n8n self-hosted — start free, unlimited everything, AI-ready.
✅ Recommended for non-technical teams: Make Core at $10.59/mo — best visual editor, 1,500+ integrations, no server needed.
❌ Skip Zapier if you're using either of these alternatives — you get more for less with both.