Make vs n8n — which automation platform should you use?
Make is a polished cloud-only visual builder with strong branching, billed per operation. n8n is open-source and self-hostable, the most technical and flexible of the two — native code and an HTTP node to hit any API — billed per execution, which is usually cheapest at high volume (and free aside from infra if you self-host). The trade-off is convenience versus control.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | Teams wanting a polished visual builder, no infra to manage | Technical teams needing flexibility, self-hosting, or high volume |
| Ease of use | Moderate — approachable visual canvas | Steeper — most technical of the mainstream tools |
| Pricing model | Per operation (cloud) | Per execution (full workflow run); self-hosting free aside from infra |
| Branching & logic | Strong — routers, iterators, aggregators | Strong, plus code-driven logic for anything custom |
| Self-hosting / data control | Cloud-only (no self-hosting) | Open-source and self-hostable; cloud option too |
| Custom code / flexibility | Functions and code modules within scenarios | Native JavaScript/Python and an HTTP node for any API |
| Integration breadth | Large library of pre-built apps | Fewer pre-built apps; code/HTTP covers the gap |
| AI & LLM workflows | AI modules in a visual flow | Strong AI/LLM and agent-workflow support |
| Where it wins | Polish, ease, and visual debugging with zero ops | Flexibility, data control, and cost at high volume |
The verdict
Choose Make when you want a polished visual builder with no servers to run, your team prefers a managed cloud tool, and your branching needs are well served by routers and aggregators. Choose n8n when you need self-hosting or strict data control, you're comfortable with code and APIs, or you run high enough volume that per-execution pricing (or free self-hosting) wins on cost. The honest framing: branching-and-visual-with-no-ops leans Make, while technical, high-volume, stateful, or self-hosted leans n8n. If picking and maintaining the platform isn't how you want to spend your time, Aiprosol runs the right tool per workflow on your behalf — the $97 Workflow Automation Playbook documents the decision matrix, or the done-for-you services handle the whole build and operation.
FAQs
Is n8n cheaper than Make?
Usually at scale, yes. n8n bills per execution — one full workflow run, no matter how many steps — while Make bills per operation, so multi-step Make scenarios consume operations faster. And self-hosted n8n is free apart from your own infrastructure costs. At low volume on managed cloud the two can be close; check current pricing against your real run counts.
Can I self-host Make like I can with n8n?
No. Make is cloud-only with no official self-hosting. n8n is open-source and can be self-hosted on your own infrastructure (it also offers a managed cloud option). If self-hosting or full data control is required, n8n is the fit.
Is n8n harder to use than Make?
Generally yes. Make's visual canvas is fairly approachable, while n8n is the more technical tool and rewards comfort with code and APIs. n8n's flexibility is the upside of that steeper curve.
Does Make have more integrations than n8n?
Make has a larger library of pre-built app connectors. n8n ships fewer pre-built integrations, but its native code support and HTTP node let it connect to virtually any API, which closes most of the gap for technical teams.
Which handles AI and agent workflows better?
Both support LLM steps. Make does it visually within scenarios. n8n has strong support for AI/LLM and agent-style workflows and, combined with native code, tends to be more flexible for custom or stateful agent logic.