n8n vs Make (Integromat): Which Automation Platform Should You Choose?

Make (formerly Integromat) and n8n represent two different approaches to workflow automation. Both are powerful alternatives to Zapier, but they have different strengths, pricing models, and ideal use cases.

This comparison will help you understand which platform fits your needs.

Quick Comparison

Factor	n8n	Make
Pricing Model	Free (self-hosted) or per execution	Per operation
Self-Hosting	Yes	No
Open Source	Yes	No
Visual Builder	Node-based	Module-based
Code Support	Full JavaScript/Python	Limited
Learning Curve	Moderate	Moderate
Best For	Technical teams, complex workflows	Visual thinkers, mid-complexity

Pricing: The Key Difference

Make Pricing (2025)

Plan	Price/Month	Operations	Scenarios
Free	$0	1,000	2
Core	$9	10,000	Unlimited
Pro	$16	10,000	Unlimited
Teams	$29/user	10,000	Unlimited
Enterprise	Custom	Custom	Custom

Make charges per “operation”—each module that processes data counts as one operation.

n8n Pricing (2025)

Option	Price/Month	Executions	Workflows
Self-Hosted	$0	Unlimited	Unlimited
Starter (Cloud)	$20	2,500	Unlimited
Pro (Cloud)	$50	10,000	Unlimited
Enterprise	Custom	Custom	Custom

n8n charges per workflow execution on cloud, or unlimited free if self-hosted.

Real Cost Comparison

Consider a workflow with 10 steps that runs 1,000 times monthly:

Make:

• 10 operations × 1,000 runs = 10,000 operations
• Fits in Core/Pro plan: $9-16/month

n8n Cloud:

• 1,000 executions
• Fits in Starter plan: $20/month

n8n Self-Hosted:

• Server costs only: $5-20/month

At higher volumes, the differences compound. For 10,000 workflow runs with 10 steps:

Make: 100,000 operations → $183/month (Pro + extra ops) n8n Cloud: 10,000 executions → $50/month n8n Self-Hosted: Unlimited → $20-50/month

Winner: n8n, especially self-hosted at scale.

Visual Interface

Make’s Approach

Make uses a visual “scenario” builder with modules connected by lines. It’s highly visual and intuitive:

Strengths:

• Drag-and-drop is extremely smooth
• Data mapping is visual and clear
• Error handling has visual indicators
• Scenarios look like flowcharts

Weaknesses:

• Complex logic can become visually cluttered
• Limited ability to write custom code
• Visual debugging can be harder for large scenarios

n8n’s Approach

n8n uses a node-based canvas where you connect nodes representing actions:

Strengths:

• Clean canvas that scales well
• Each node’s data is inspectable
• Code nodes for custom logic
• Easier to manage complex branching

Weaknesses:

• Slightly less visually polished
• Learning curve for non-visual thinkers
• Data mapping uses expressions (not purely visual)

Winner: Make for visual simplicity, n8n for complex workflows.

Features Deep Dive

Integrations

Make: 1,500+ apps with native integrations. Strong coverage of popular tools, especially in marketing and productivity.

n8n: 400+ native nodes, but HTTP Request and Webhook nodes connect to anything with an API. Custom nodes can be built and shared.

Practical difference:

• If you need a specific integration (e.g., “Calendly to Notion”), Make likely has it ready to use.
• If you need custom API work or database connections, n8n is more flexible.

Winner: Make for breadth, n8n for flexibility.

Data Handling

Make:

• Visual data mapping (point and click)
• Array handling is visual
• Data transformations use built-in functions
• Iterator and aggregator modules for arrays

n8n:

• Expression-based data mapping
• Full JavaScript access for transformations
• Split In Batches node for array processing
• Code nodes for any transformation

Winner: n8n for power users, Make for simplicity.

Error Handling

Make:

• Visual error handling with routes
• “Break” and “Resume” for retries
• Error notifications built-in
• Incomplete execution handling

n8n:

• Error Trigger node for global handling
• Per-node error outputs
• Retry on fail configuration
• Custom error workflows

Both platforms handle errors well, but differently:

• Make’s visual approach is easier to understand
• n8n’s approach is more customizable

Winner: Tie—depends on preference.

Code and Customization

Make:

• Limited code support (JavaScript functions)
• No custom module creation
• Relies on built-in modules
• Some transformations require workarounds

n8n:

• Full JavaScript and Python code nodes
• Execute Command node for system operations
• Custom node development supported
• Can run arbitrary code

If you need custom logic beyond what’s built-in, n8n wins decisively.

Winner: n8n.

Self-Hosting and Data Control

Make: Cloud only. Your data flows through their servers. No self-hosting option.

n8n: Self-host on your infrastructure, or use n8n Cloud. Full data control with self-hosting.

For businesses with:

• Compliance requirements (HIPAA, GDPR)
• Sensitive data concerns
• Need for private network access

Self-hosting is often mandatory. Only n8n offers it.

Winner: n8n.

Use Case Comparison

Marketing Automation

Make is strong here with native integrations for:

• Facebook/Meta ads
• Google Ads
• Email platforms
• CRM systems

n8n can do everything Make does, but may require more setup for some marketing tools.

Recommendation: Make for typical marketing automation, n8n for complex multi-system workflows.

Data Pipelines

Moving data between databases, APIs, and storage:

Make handles basic ETL but hits limits with large datasets and complex transformations.

n8n excels here with:

• Native database nodes (MySQL, PostgreSQL, MongoDB)
• Code nodes for complex transformations
• Better handling of large data volumes
• Self-hosting for data privacy

Recommendation: n8n for data pipelines.

Business Process Automation

Automating internal workflows:

Make is great for:

• Document routing
• Approval workflows
• Notification systems

n8n adds:

• Integration with internal systems
• Custom business logic
• Webhook endpoints for internal tools

Recommendation: Either works; n8n for custom internal systems.

Developer Workflows

CI/CD, monitoring, deployment:

Make wasn’t built for this. Limited GitHub/GitLab support, no CLI integration.

n8n fits developer workflows with:

• SSH node for server commands
• GitHub/GitLab nodes
• Docker-friendly deployment
• API-first approach

Recommendation: n8n for developer/DevOps workflows.

The Decision Framework

Choose Make If:

1. You’re non-technical and want a purely visual interface
2. You need specific marketing integrations that Make has built-in
3. Workflows are moderate complexity (5-15 steps, linear logic)
4. You don’t need self-hosting and cloud-only is acceptable
5. Team adoption is important—Make’s interface is easier to learn

Choose n8n If:

1. You have technical capability or partner with someone who does
2. You need custom code for business logic
3. Workflows are complex with branching, loops, error handling
4. Self-hosting is required for compliance or data control
5. Cost efficiency matters at scale
6. You’re connecting to databases or internal APIs

Migration Considerations

Make to n8n:

Most Make scenarios can be recreated in n8n. The logic is similar—modules map to nodes, data transformations translate to expressions.

Challenges:

• Some Make-specific integrations need HTTP Request alternatives
• Visual data mapping becomes expression-based
• Team retraining required

n8n to Make:

Going the other direction is harder. Code nodes and custom logic don’t translate cleanly to Make’s visual-only approach.

Our Recommendation

For most growing businesses with technical resources, n8n is the better long-term choice. The self-hosting option, unlimited execution model, and code flexibility make it more scalable.

Make is better for teams that:

• Prioritize visual simplicity
• Have moderate automation needs
• Don’t need self-hosting
• Want the easiest learning curve

If you’re currently on Make and hitting limits—cost, complexity, or capability—consider migrating to n8n. We offer migration services that handle the transition.

If you’re starting fresh and have even mild technical capability, start with n8n. You’ll thank yourself later as workflows scale.

Getting Started with n8n

Ready to try n8n?

• Self-hosting: Follow our self-hosting guide or use our setup service
• Cloud: Start at n8n.io/cloud
• Migration: Check our migration services for Make-to-n8n transitions

Either platform can power serious automation. The key is choosing the one that fits how you work and where you’re headed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is n8n more powerful than Make?

For code-heavy workflows and self-hosting, yes. n8n offers full JavaScript/Python support, custom node development, and complete infrastructure control. Make is more powerful for visual-only users who prefer purely point-and-click configuration.

Can I migrate from Make to n8n?

Yes. Make scenarios translate to n8n workflows with similar concepts—modules become nodes, routers become IF nodes. Some Make-specific integrations may need HTTP Request alternatives. See our migration playbook for the process (applies to both Zapier and Make).

Which is cheaper: n8n or Make?

n8n is typically cheaper at scale. Make charges per operation (each module run), while n8n charges per workflow execution or is free if self-hosted. A 10-step workflow running 1,000 times costs 10,000 Make operations but only 1,000 n8n executions.

Does Make have self-hosting?

No. Make is cloud-only with no self-hosting option. If you need on-premise deployment for compliance, data privacy, or cost control, n8n is the only choice between these two.

Which has better error handling?

Both handle errors well but differently. Make uses visual error routes and break/resume functionality. n8n uses Error Trigger nodes and customizable error workflows. For production systems requiring custom error logic, n8n is more flexible. See our best practices guide for error handling patterns.

Can n8n replace Make for marketing automation?

Yes, though some marketing integrations may require more initial setup. n8n handles CRM, email, ads, and analytics platforms well. For pure marketing workflows with popular tools, both work equally well.