These two get compared far less often than either gets compared to Zapier, which is odd, because they're the two you're most likely to be choosing between once you've decided Zapier is too constrained. They're closer to each other than either is to Zapier — both give you a visual canvas with real control over flow — and the differences that matter are narrower and more specific.
The one difference that usually decides it
n8n can be self-hosted. Make.com cannot.
Everything else on this page is a preference. This one is frequently a constraint.
Self-hosting matters when your data can't pass through a third-party processor — healthcare records, financial data, anything with a residency requirement — or when you want predictable cost at volume rather than a bill that scales per operation. It also removes limits: on your own server you can run arbitrary code, install dependencies and reach systems inside your own network.
The cost is that you now own it. Uptime, upgrades, backups and the server bill are yours. We've seen teams self-host for the principle of it and then quietly regret the operational load. If neither data residency nor volume economics apply to you, Make being hosted is a feature, not a limitation.
Pricing shape
Make charges per operation — roughly, each module run on each bundle. A scenario processing a hundred records through six modules consumes operations accordingly.
n8n cloud charges per workflow execution: one run counts once regardless of how many nodes it contains. Self-hosted n8n has no per-run cost at all.
For low volumes the difference is noise. For high-volume work, particularly workflows with many steps per record, n8n's execution-based model is structurally cheaper — and self-hosted, dramatically so. This is the most common reason we're asked to migrate a Make account.
That said: Make's operation counting is very predictable, and predictability has value when you're budgeting.
Handling complexity
Both handle branching properly, which is where they separate from Zapier.
Make is strongest at visual data flow. Routers, iterators and aggregators give you fine control over how bundles move through a scenario, and when it's built well the canvas genuinely documents itself. The flip side is that bundle semantics are subtle — most broken Make scenarios we're handed fail on empty arrays or partial batches, because the behaviour differs from what the builder assumed.
n8n gives you a node graph plus a Code node where you can write JavaScript or Python inline. When a transformation is genuinely awkward, writing six lines of code beats assembling nine modules to avoid writing them. It's more comfortable if you have developers and less so if you don't.
Error handling
Both have real error handling, which again separates them from simpler tools.
Make has error directives — break, resume, rollback, commit — applied per module, plus incomplete executions you can inspect and replay. It's powerful and it requires deliberate use; the default behaviour is not what you want in production.
n8n has error workflows that run when a workflow fails, which is a clean pattern: one place to route, log and alert on failures across many workflows.
Neither gives you good error handling for free. Both will fail silently if you don't set it up, and that's the single most common defect we find in inherited automations on either platform.
Connectors
Make has more prebuilt integrations, and its connectors tend to cover more of each product's API surface.
n8n has fewer, plus an HTTP Request node that talks to anything with a REST API and the option of writing custom nodes. So the real question isn't whether n8n "supports" a given tool — it's whether you want to spend an hour wiring it up instead of five minutes selecting it.
Who maintains it?
Make is more approachable for a non-developer. The canvas is more visual, the mapping interface is friendlier, and an operations person can genuinely own scenarios.
n8n assumes more technical comfort. Expressions, the Code node and self-hosting all point toward someone who is at least developer-adjacent.
If the person who will own this isn't technical, that alone can settle it.
The decision table
| If this is true | Choose |
|---|---|
| Data can't leave your infrastructure | n8n, self-hosted |
| High volume and cost is hurting | n8n |
| You want no infrastructure to run | Make |
| A non-developer will own it | Make |
| You need real code inside workflows | n8n |
| You need a specific connector Make already has | Make |
| You're already deep in one and it works | Stay |
Our honest position
We build both and have no incentive either way. In practice we recommend Make when a team wants capability beyond Zapier without owning infrastructure, and n8n when data residency, volume economics or genuine code requirements are in play.
The worst outcome is migrating for its own sake. The business rules in your existing scenarios are rarely documented anywhere else, and rebuilding them is how you find out which edge cases mattered — usually in production.
If you're weighing these up for a specific process, tell us what it involves. We'll say which we'd use and why, including when the answer is to stay where you are.
Related: n8n workflow automation · Make.com automation · n8n vs Zapier