Make vs n8n: Features, Pricing and Verdict

Make and n8n both build visual multi-step workflows, but they bill differently and suit different teams. Compare features, pricing, and self-hosting.

By Galactic News Editorial · Published 2026-11-08T13:29:31+00:00 · Updated 2026-11-08T13:29:31+00:00

Make vs n8n: Features, Pricing and Verdict

Make and n8n are the two most popular visual automation platforms for people who want more than simple two-app connections. Both let you build multi-step workflows, branch on conditions, and call APIs. They differ in how they charge, how much code they expect, and whether you can run them on your own server. This make vs n8n comparison covers features, pricing, and the trade-offs that matter most.

Make vs n8n at a glance

How Make works

Make, formerly Integromat, builds automations called scenarios on a visual canvas. You drag modules onto the canvas and connect them. A module reads data, searches, creates, updates, or deletes a record in an app. Routers split a flow into branches. Filters decide which records pass through. Error-handling directives tell a scenario what to do when a step fails: resume, commit, roll back, or ignore the error and move on.

The billing model is the sharpest edge in a make vs n8n comparison. Make bills in credits. Since August 27, credits are the billing unit. Each action a module performs consumes credits, and most actions consume 1 credit. Router modules and error-handler modules consume none. The Free plan includes 1,000 credits a month and two active scenarios. Paid plans raise the credit allowance and add features such as priority execution, custom variables, and full-text search of execution history. Make lists more than 1,000 third-party apps in its catalog, plus custom apps for any public API.

How n8n works

n8n builds automations as workflows of connected nodes. Each node is an app, a function, or a decision point. Code nodes run JavaScript or Python inside a workflow. AI agent nodes connect language models and tools, so a workflow can reason over data rather than only move it. The canvas supports branching, merging, loops, and sub-workflows.

n8n bills per workflow execution, not per step. A workflow with ten steps uses one execution. That is the key pricing difference from Make, where ten module runs use ten credits. The Community Edition is free to self-host, with unlimited executions and almost the full feature set. It runs under the Sustainable Use License, which is source-available rather than open source. Paid features held back from the free edition include SSO, environments, Git version control, and workflow sharing.

Make vs n8n: pricing

Make's Free plan costs $0 and includes 1,000 credits a month. Paid plans scale by credit allowance, with Core, Pro, Teams, and Enterprise tiers. Prices change often and depend on the credit slider on the pricing page, so check make.com/en/pricing for the current figures before you buy.

n8n publishes its cloud prices on n8n.io/pricing. Starter costs 20 euros a month billed annually and includes 2,500 executions a month. Pro costs 50 euros a month billed annually, with a higher execution allowance. Business costs 667 euros a month billed annually, is self-hosted only, and adds SSO, environments, and Git version control. Enterprise is custom pricing. Every cloud plan includes unlimited workflows and unlimited users. n8n shows prices in euros on its pricing page; checkout shows the same figures in dollars for US buyers.

Do the math for your own volume. A workflow that runs 1,000 times a month with 10 steps costs 10,000 credits on Make and 1,000 executions on n8n. At low step counts the difference is small. At high step counts, per-execution billing pulls ahead.

Make vs n8n: self-hosting and data control

Self-hosting is the biggest structural difference between the two tools. Make runs only on Make's servers. Your data passes through their infrastructure, and you accept their uptime and limits. For most business teams, that is fine, and it is one less system to maintain.

n8n gives you the opposite choice. The Community Edition runs on your own server, free, with unlimited executions. Your workflow data stays inside your infrastructure, which matters for regulated data and for teams that already run their own stack. The cost is operational: you handle updates, backups, and uptime. If you cannot staff that work, the cloud plans remove it for a monthly fee. Either way, the option exists only on the n8n side.

Make vs n8n: which one should you pick?

Pick Make if you want the friendliest visual builder and you do not want to touch a server. Its canvas, error handling, and large app catalog suit business teams and solo operators. Pick n8n if you are comfortable with code, you want to self-host, or your workflows have many steps per run. Per-execution billing and the free Community Edition make it the cheaper option at volume, as long as you can run the server yourself.

Think about who will maintain the automations in six months. A visual tool that the team actually opens beats a powerful tool that only one person understands. If your team has no one comfortable with code or servers, Make is the safer bet. If you have even one technical person who will own the setup, n8n's control and pricing are hard to beat. Both tools offer free tiers, so the cheapest test is to build the same real workflow in each and compare the result.

Both tools are strong. The wrong choice is picking one for a job the other does better: Make for heavy self-hosted workloads, or n8n for a team that will never open a code node.

Bottom line

In the end, the make vs n8n choice comes down to ease against control. Make wins on ease of use and visual clarity. n8n wins on cost at volume and on control, thanks to self-hosting and per-execution billing. For a small team automating business apps, start with Make's Free plan. For a technical team running long workflows, start with n8n's Community Edition. Either way, test with a real workflow before you pay.