Make vs n8n: Which Automation Tool Should You Use in 2026?

A practical comparison of Make (formerly Integromat) and n8n covering pricing, self-hosting, integrations, and migration steps for small teams.

Updated 2026-09 · 2026

Make

Visual automation platform for connecting apps and building workflows

Free plan available, paid plans from $9/monthmonth (billed annually)

Strengths

+Polished visual builder with drag-and-drop scenario editor
+1,400+ pre-built app integrations
+Strong error handling and scenario debugging tools

Weaknesses

-Pricing scales fast with operation volume, gets expensive at scale
-No self-hosting option — you're locked into their cloud
-Complex scenarios can get expensive due to per-operation billing

Best for

Non-technical teams who want a fast, visual way to connect SaaS apps without managing infrastructure.

n8n

Fair-code workflow automation tool you can self-host or run in the cloud

Free if self-hosted, cloud plans from $20/monthmonth

Strengths

+Self-hosting is free and unlimited — no per-operation charges
+Can write custom JavaScript/Python code inside nodes
+Full control over data, hosting, and infrastructure

Weaknesses

-Self-hosting requires technical setup (Docker, server maintenance)
-Steeper learning curve than Make's editor
-Fewer native app integrations than Make out of the box

Best for

Technical teams comfortable with self-hosting who want to avoid recurring per-operation costs.

Feature Comparison

Feature	Make	n8n
Free tier	1,000 operations/month	Unlimited (self-hosted community edition)
Self-hosting	Not available	Yes, via Docker/npm
Visual workflow builder	Yes, highly polished	Yes, functional but less refined
Custom code (JS/Python) in workflows	Limited (via functions/modules)	Full JavaScript/Python code nodes
Pricing model	Per operation	Per execution (cloud) or free (self-hosted)
Native integrations	1,400+	400+ (growing) plus HTTP/API node for anything
Error handling & retries	Built-in, visual	Built-in, configurable per node
Data residency control	No (Make's cloud only)	Yes, if self-hosted
License	Proprietary, closed source	Fair-code (Sustainable Use License)
Team collaboration features	Yes, on Teams/Enterprise plans	Yes, on cloud/enterprise plans
AI/LLM node support	Yes, via HTTP/OpenAI modules	Yes, dedicated AI nodes and LangChain integration

The Verdict

If your team just wants to connect apps without touching infrastructure, Make's polished editor is worth the per-operation cost. If you have any technical capacity to self-host, n8n eliminates the recurring bill entirely and gives you more control — it's the better long-term choice for teams that expect to scale automation volume.

How to switch from Make to n8n

1Export each Make scenario individually via the three-dot menu → 'Export Blueprint,' saving the resulting JSON files as a reference for rebuilding logic in n8n.
2Set up n8n — either self-host via Docker (docker run n8nio/n8n) or sign up for n8n Cloud — and confirm you can log in and create a blank workflow.
3Rebuild each Make scenario as an n8n workflow node-by-node, using the exported JSON blueprints as a checklist of triggers, actions, and filters to replicate.
4Re-authenticate all third-party app connections (API keys, OAuth logins) inside n8n, since Make's stored credentials won't transfer over.
5Run both Make and n8n versions of each workflow in parallel for a few days, comparing outputs to confirm the n8n version behaves identically.
6Deactivate the Make scenarios and cancel or downgrade your Make subscription once you've confirmed the n8n workflows are stable and the team has switched over.

Make vs n8n: common questions

How do I export my scenarios from Make to migrate to n8n?+

In Make, open each scenario, click the three-dot menu, and choose 'Export Blueprint' — this downloads a JSON file describing the scenario's structure. You'll need to do this per scenario since Make doesn't offer a bulk export. Note the JSON isn't directly importable into n8n — you'll use it as a reference to rebuild the logic.

What do I lose by switching from Make to n8n?+

You lose Make's larger native integration library (1,400+ vs n8n's ~400+), so some apps you connected via a dedicated Make module might need to be wired up through n8n's generic HTTP Request node instead. You also lose Make's more polished visual debugging and the zero-maintenance cloud hosting, unless you pay for n8n Cloud instead of self-hosting.

Is n8n's free tier enough for a small team?+

Yes, if you self-host — the community edition is unlimited on workflows and executions, with no operation caps. The tradeoff is you need someone comfortable running a Docker container or VPS and handling updates/backups. If you don't want to self-host, n8n's paid cloud plans start at $20/month for 2,500 executions.

Does n8n support the same integrations as Make?+

Not all of them natively — n8n has roughly a third of Make's integration count. However, n8n's HTTP Request node and code nodes can connect to virtually any API with a REST endpoint, so most 'missing' integrations are still possible, just requiring more manual setup than a one-click Make module.

Is n8n actually cheaper than Make over time?+

If you self-host, yes — you pay only for your server (often $5-20/month on a basic VPS) regardless of execution volume, versus Make where costs climb as your operation count grows. If you use n8n Cloud instead, the savings are smaller but still meaningful since it's execution-based rather than operation-based, which tends to be cheaper for workflows with many steps per run.