Affiliate disclosure: AI Agent Square may earn commissions through links on this page. Scoring is editorially independent. See our methodology.
n8n
Fair-code workflow automation. 1,700+ nodes, 70+ AI nodes, free self-hosting, execution-based pricing.
Try n8n Read reviewMake.com
Cloud workflow automation. 3,000+ apps, beautiful visual builder, generous free tier. Operations/credit-based pricing.
Try Make Read review90-second verdict: Choose Make.com if you want the most beautiful visual builder, a genuinely useful free tier (1,000 operations/month), and your workflows are simple-to-moderate complexity. Choose n8n if you want free self-hosting, deep AI/LangChain capability, lower costs at scale, and you're comfortable with a slightly steeper learning curve. For most technical buyers, n8n is the more defensible long-term choice. For most non-technical SMB operators, Make is more enjoyable.
At-a-glance comparison
| Factor | n8n | Make.com |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price (cloud) | €24/mo (Starter) | $10.59/mo (Core) Make |
| Free tier | 14-day trial OR self-host free n8n | 1,000 ops/mo forever |
| Pricing unit | Per workflow execution n8n | Per operation / credit |
| Total integrations | 1,700+ | 3,000+ Make |
| Native AI / LangChain nodes | 70+ n8n | ~15 AI modules |
| Self-hosting | Yes, free (Community) n8n | No |
| Visual builder polish | Functional, developer-leaning | Colorful, animated, beautiful Make |
| Built-in JS / Python | Yes n8n | Custom code modules (limited) |
| Free templates | ~1,500 community | 4,500+ templates Make |
| Learning curve | 4-8 hours non-tech | 1-3 hours non-tech Make |
| Multi-branch workflows | Native graph model n8n | Routers required |
| SOC 2 / GDPR | Yes (Cloud) | Yes |
| HIPAA | Self-hosted Enterprise only | Enterprise tier |
| SSO / SAML | Business (€800/mo) or self-host Enterprise | Enterprise tier |
| Best for | Technical teams, AI agents, cost-conscious scale | SMBs, visual-first non-tech operators, agency teams |
| Our score | 9.0 / 10 | 8.4 / 10 |
Pricing: operations vs executions
The single most important concept in this comparison: n8n charges per workflow execution (one whole run), Make.com charges per operation (one per module per run). At low complexity and low volume, this favors Make. At higher complexity and volume, this dramatically favors n8n.
How Make.com counts usage
Make uses "operations" as the unit. Each time a module performs a task in your scenario, it consumes 1 operation (some advanced modules consume more). As of November 2025, Make rebranded operations to "credits" — the math is largely the same, with 1 standard module action equaling 1 credit. A 5-step scenario running 1,000 times burns 5,000 credits.
How n8n counts usage
n8n counts executions. One execution = one complete run of a workflow, regardless of how many nodes it visits. A workflow with 50 nodes running 1,000 times = 1,000 executions.
Side-by-side plan pricing
| Tier | n8n (cloud) | Make.com |
|---|---|---|
| Free | 14-day trial OR self-host forever | 1,000 ops/mo forever, 2 active scenarios |
| Entry-level paid | €24/mo Starter · 2,500 executions · 5 active workflows | $10.59/mo Core · 10,000 ops · unlimited scenarios |
| Pro / mid-tier | €60/mo Pro · 10,000 executions · priority queue | $18.82/mo Pro · 10,000 ops · priority + execution search |
| Team / collaboration | (see Business) | $34.12/mo Teams · team roles + reusable scenario templates |
| Business / Enterprise | €800/mo Business + custom Enterprise | Custom Enterprise |
Sources: n8n.io/pricing and make.com/en/pricing, verified May 2026.
Real-world cost: three scenarios
Simple 3-step workflow (RSS → AI summarise → Slack), 1,000 runs/month
- n8n: 1,000 executions on Starter (€24). Cost: €24.
- Make.com: 3,000 operations on Core ($10.59 for 10,000 ops). Cost: $10.59.
Winner: Make.com — half the price at low complexity.
Mid-complexity workflow (lead enrich, 12 steps), 5,000 runs/month
- n8n: 5,000 executions on Pro (€60). Cost: €60.
- Make.com: 60,000 operations. Pro plan with custom credit allocation ~$50-80. Cost: $50-80.
Winner: Roughly tied. Make is slightly cheaper at this scale but the per-credit pricing starts requiring careful management.
AI agent workflow (RAG pipeline, 25 steps), 20,000 runs/month
- n8n: 20,000 executions on Business (€800). Cost: €800.
- Make.com: 500,000 operations. Custom enterprise quote, typically €800-1,500.
Winner: n8n at predictable Business pricing. Self-hosted n8n is dramatically cheaper still.
Integrations: 3,000 vs 1,700
Make.com wins on raw count: 3,000+ pre-built apps vs n8n's 1,700+. The Make catalog is particularly broad in the long tail of SMB SaaS — niche industry apps, regional tools, freemium SaaS products. For marketing operators and agencies serving diverse SMB clients, Make's wider catalog matters.
n8n's catalog is narrower but tends to be deeper. Database connectors (Postgres, MongoDB, Snowflake) expose more functionality. AWS, GCP, and Azure SDK coverage is broader. Most importantly, n8n's HTTP Request node makes any REST or GraphQL API reachable — meaning n8n's effective integration surface is closer to "infinite" than the 1,700 count suggests.
The decision frame: if your workflows touch a few well-known SaaS tools (Slack, HubSpot, Notion, Stripe, OpenAI), both platforms cover you well. If you need niche-SaaS coverage, Make wins. If you need direct database or cloud SDK access, n8n wins.
AI agents and LangChain
n8n's 70+ native LangChain nodes vs Make's ~15 AI modules. This is the biggest capability gap between the two platforms in 2026.
Make.com's AI capabilities: OpenAI module (chat completion, embeddings, image gen), Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini, AssemblyAI for transcription, ElevenLabs for voice, basic Pinecone integration. Make's strength is workflow-building copilot ("Make AI Assistant") that helps non-technical users build scenarios from natural-language descriptions.
n8n's AI capabilities: Full LangChain primitive set — chat models, embeddings, vector stores (Pinecone, Qdrant, Weaviate, Supabase pgvector, Postgres, Redis), memory (buffer, summary, vector), retrievers, document loaders, text splitters, output parsers, tool-use agents, and chains. You can build production RAG over enterprise knowledge bases, multi-tool customer support agents, structured data extraction pipelines, all visually.
If AI agent building is anywhere in your roadmap, n8n wins decisively. If you're using AI for occasional "summarise this with OpenAI" steps, Make is fine.
Ease of use and the visual builder
Make.com has the most beautiful visual builder in the workflow automation category. Animated module connections, color-coded operations, intuitive "router" modules for branching, and a satisfying animation when scenarios run. For non-technical operators who appreciate visual design, Make is genuinely pleasant to use. The learning curve is short — most operators are productive within 1-3 hours.
n8n's builder is more functional and developer-leaning. Node-based canvas, expression syntax ({{ $node['HTTP Request'].json.email }}), and a graph model that supports parallel branches and recursive sub-workflows natively. The learning curve is 4-8 hours for non-technical users — but once climbed, you can build workflows Make physically cannot express cleanly (fan-out/fan-in, recursive loops, complex conditional graphs).
For non-technical SMB operators: Make is the better choice. For technical teams or anyone building beyond linear-with-router workflows: n8n is more powerful.
Self-hosting and data residency
Make.com cannot be self-hosted. All workflow data, execution logs, credentials, and business logic live on Make's cloud infrastructure (primarily EU-based, with US options for enterprise). For most US-based SMBs, this is fine. For European companies wrestling with Schrems II, healthcare companies needing HIPAA, or regulated industries with strict data residency, this is often a hard constraint.
n8n's Community Edition can run on your own Docker, Kubernetes, or VM infrastructure. Enterprise Self-Hosted adds SSO, RBAC, audit logs, and external secrets management for compliance use cases. This is the single most important reason regulated buyers choose n8n over Make.
Verdict: which to choose
Choose Make.com if… you're a non-technical SMB operator, your workflows are 2-6 steps and run under 10,000 times per month, you appreciate beautiful visual design, you need the broadest long-tail SaaS integration catalog, or you want the most generous always-free tier.
Choose n8n if… you have engineering capacity, you're building AI/LangChain workflows, you need self-hosting for compliance, your workflows run 10,000+ times per month, you've felt Make's per-operation pricing crunch, or you simply want a more powerful and less expensive long-term automation platform.
By buyer profile
Solo founder, non-technical: Make.com. The free tier alone is enough for most early needs.
Marketing operator at an SMB: Make.com. Simpler, prettier, cheaper at SMB volumes.
RevOps team at Series A-C SaaS: n8n. Multi-step workflows + 5,000+ runs/month tips the math.
AI engineering team building agents: n8n. The LangChain depth is generational.
Agency serving SMB clients: Make.com. Wider integration catalog matters for diverse client work.
Regulated industry (healthcare, finance, government): n8n self-hosted. Make's cloud-only posture often disqualifies it.
Frequently asked questions
Is n8n cheaper than Make.com?
For simple workflows at low volume, Make.com is cheaper — its free tier offers 1,000 operations/month and Core is just $10.59/month. For complex workflows or high volume, n8n is significantly cheaper because it charges per execution (whole workflow run), not per operation (per step). At 10,000+ multi-step runs per month, n8n typically costs 30-60% less than Make.
Can Make.com be self-hosted?
No. Make.com is a cloud-only SaaS platform. n8n offers a free self-hosted Community Edition that can run on your own infrastructure for compliance, cost, or data residency reasons. This is one of the biggest differentiators between the two platforms.
Does Make have more integrations than n8n?
Make has 3,000+ pre-built integrations vs n8n's 1,700+. Make's catalog is broader, particularly in the long tail of SMB SaaS tools. n8n's integrations tend to be deeper, with more low-level options (databases, cloud SDKs, generic protocol nodes), and any REST/GraphQL API can be called via n8n's HTTP Request node.
n8n vs Make.com for AI agents?
n8n wins decisively for AI agent building. It ships 70+ native LangChain nodes covering vector stores, embeddings, memory, retrievers, output parsers, and tool-use agents. Make has ~15 AI modules, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemini connectors, but lacks the depth needed for serious RAG pipelines or multi-tool agents.
Which has the better visual builder — n8n or Make?
Make.com has the more polished visual builder — colorful, animated, with intuitive routing. n8n's builder is more functional and developer-leaning. For non-technical users who appreciate visual design, Make feels more enjoyable to work in. For technical users building complex workflows, n8n's expression syntax and code nodes provide more power.
Sources & further reading
- Official n8n pricing — n8n.io/pricing
- Official Make.com pricing — make.com/en/pricing
- n8n's own n8n-vs-make comparison — n8n.io/vs/make
- Make's own n8n-vs-make comparison — make.com/en/compare/make-vs-n8n
- Zapier's make.com pricing review — zapier.com/blog/make-com-pricing