A detailed side-by-side comparison to help you choose the right automation & agents tool in 2026.
Last researched: 2026-03-02
| Feature | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | ||
| Pricing Model | freemium | freemium |
| Starting Price | $9/month | $20/month |
| Free Tier | Yes | Yes |
The matchup between Make and n8n is a battle for the heart of the more technical automation user, a direct confrontation between two powerful, visually-oriented platforms that serve as the primary alternatives to Zapier. Both platforms reject Zapier's linear, simplistic approach in favor of a more flexible, canvas-based workflow builder. However, they diverge on the fundamental principles of openness and target audience. Make (formerly Integromat) is a proprietary, cloud-based platform that aims to provide a powerful yet user-friendly visual development experience. Its interface is polished, and its library of over 2,000 integrations is substantial, making it a strong choice for users who want more power than Zapier without the complexities of self-hosting. n8n, on the other hand, is the open-source champion. Its core value proposition is ultimate flexibility and control. It can be self-hosted for free, offering complete data sovereignty, or used as a managed cloud service. Its node-based system is designed with developers in mind, offering powerful features like native JavaScript code nodes and a highly extensible architecture. While it has fewer pre-built integrations than Make, its ability to connect to any REST API and its focus on developer-centric features make it a powerhouse for creating bespoke, complex automations. This philosophical difference is reflected in user sentiment. Agencies and business process consultants often praise Make for its balance of power and usability, finding it the perfect tool to build complex workflows for clients without needing to manage infrastructure. In contrast, developers and engineering teams gravitate towards n8n for its open-source nature, its superior data control, and its powerful coding capabilities. The choice between them is a choice between a polished, proprietary tool with a broader set of pre-built connections and an open, endlessly customizable platform for those who want to be in the driver's seat.
| Area | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting & Open-Source | Make is a proprietary, cloud-only platform. It's a fully managed service, which is convenient but offers no option for self-hosting or direct control over the underlying infrastructure. | n8n is open-source. It can be self-hosted for free, providing complete data privacy and control, or used via a paid cloud version. This flexibility is a major advantage for developers and privacy-conscious organizations. ✓ |
| Workflow Builder & Flexibility | Make offers a very polished and intuitive visual canvas for building scenarios. It supports complex branching, error handling, and data transformation, making it significantly more flexible than Zapier. | n8n also uses a visual, node-based canvas. However, it is generally considered more powerful for developers due to its inclusion of native code nodes (JavaScript), which allow for arbitrarily complex logic and data manipulation within any workflow. ✓ |
| App Integrations | Make has a significant advantage in pre-built integrations, with a library of over 2,000 apps. This makes it easier to connect to a wider variety of services without needing to work with APIs directly. ✓ | n8n has a smaller library of around 400 official integrations. While it can connect to any service with an API via its HTTP Request node, this requires more technical effort than using a pre-built Make module. |
| Pricing & Scalability | Make's pricing is based on operations and can be very cost-effective for workflows with many steps. However, as usage scales, the cost can increase significantly, and there is no free self-hosting option to mitigate this. | n8n's ability to be self-hosted for free makes it unbeatable on price for high-volume or complex workflows, with the only cost being the server infrastructure. Its cloud plans are also competitively priced. ✓ |
| Ease of Use & Target Audience | Make is targeted at a broad audience, from business users to agencies. Its interface is more polished and generally considered more user-friendly and visually appealing than n8n's, making it more approachable for less technical users. ✓ | n8n is unapologetically built for a more technical audience. While its visual builder is a step up from code, concepts like data structures and the need to sometimes write JavaScript make it less suitable for complete beginners. |
Business consultants, agencies, and power users who need a visual, flexible, and powerful automation platform with a wide range of integrations, without the desire or ability to manage their own infrastructure.
Developers, engineers, and organizations that prioritize data control, customization, and cost-effectiveness at scale, and are comfortable with a more technical, developer-oriented platform.
Make and n8n are the two leading contenders for the title of "best Zapier alternative," and they both excel by offering a more powerful, visual approach to automation. Make strikes an excellent balance between power and ease of use. Its polished interface, large integration library, and cost-effective pricing (at moderate scale) make it a fantastic choice for users who have outgrown Zapier's simplicity but aren't ready to manage their own servers. It's the perfect tool for a business analyst or agency that needs to build sophisticated workflows without writing code. However, for those who can, n8n is the more powerful and strategically sound choice. Its open-source nature is a fundamental advantage, offering freedom from vendor lock-in, complete data control, and unbeatable cost-effectiveness through self-hosting. The ability to drop into JavaScript at any point in a workflow provides a level of flexibility that Make can't touch. If you are a developer or have access to development resources, n8n is the superior platform. It offers a higher ceiling for what can be built and a lower floor on cost. For the less technical power user, Make is a fantastic and highly recommended tool. But for the true automation enthusiast who values control and flexibility above all, n8n is the undisputed champion.
Migrating from Make to n8n is a relatively smooth process for a technical user. The concepts of a visual canvas and modules/nodes are similar. The main task is rebuilding the scenarios and potentially replacing some pre-built Make modules with HTTP requests or custom code in n8n. Moving from n8n to Make would be simpler from a technical standpoint but would involve a loss of the deep customization offered by code nodes and the control of self-hosting.