Quick verdict
Choose Make if you want the most polished visual workflow builder with 3,000+ integrations and no infrastructure to manage. Choose n8n if you want self-hosting, open-source flexibility, full code support, and unlimited executions at minimal cost.
Feature comparison
| Feature | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Integrations | 3,000+ | 350+ native (any API via HTTP) |
| Paid cloud price | $10.59/mo (10K credits) | €24/mo (2,500 executions) |
| Free tier | 1,000 ops/mo (cloud) | Unlimited (self-hosted) |
| Self-hosting | No | Yes (Community Edition) |
| Open source | No | Yes (fair-code license) |
| Visual builder | Best-in-class drag-and-drop | Node-based canvas |
| Code support | Basic (custom functions) | Full JavaScript & Python |
| AI modules | OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, Stability AI | LangChain, AI agent nodes |
| Error handling | Advanced fallback routes | Sub-workflow error handling |
| Learning curve | Moderate | Steeper (technical users) |
Make: strengths and weaknesses
Strengths: Make has the best visual workflow builder in the automation space—its drag-and-drop scenario designer with routers, filters, and error handlers is intuitive and powerful. With 3,000+ integrations, it covers virtually every popular SaaS tool. Cloud-only means zero infrastructure to manage. Native AI modules for OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, and Stability AI make it strong for AI workflows. Credit rollover on paid plans adds flexibility.
Weaknesses: No self-hosting option—your data always flows through Make’s servers. Custom code capabilities are limited compared to n8n’s full JavaScript/Python support. The credit-based pricing (switched from operations in 2025) can be confusing for new users. At scale, cloud costs add up, while n8n self-hosted remains free.
n8n: strengths and weaknesses
Strengths: Self-hosted Community Edition is free with unlimited executions—only infrastructure costs ($5–20/mo). Open-source codebase means full transparency and the ability to extend or customize. Full JavaScript and Python support within workflows enables complex data transformations. LangChain integration and AI agent nodes make it the strongest platform for AI automation. Workflow-based execution counting (not per-step) provides better value. Data stays on your servers with self-hosting.
Weaknesses: 350+ native integrations is significantly fewer than Make’s 3,000+ (though HTTP nodes cover the gap). Self-hosting requires DevOps skills to set up, secure, and maintain. The visual builder, while functional, isn’t as polished as Make’s. n8n Cloud pricing (€24–€800/mo) is comparable to Make without the self-hosting advantage. Smaller community and fewer templates than Make.
When to choose each
Here’s the decision framework:
- Choose Make if: you want the best visual workflow experience without managing infrastructure. Ideal for operations teams and marketing teams building complex, multi-branch automations with lots of SaaS integrations.
- Choose n8n if: you have technical resources and want self-hosting, unlimited executions, and full code capabilities. Ideal for developer teams, data-sensitive organizations, and teams building AI-heavy automations.
- Choose neither if: your automation requirements exceed what visual builders can deliver. Custom-built solutions with code give you unlimited flexibility.
Frequently asked questions
n8n has deeper AI capabilities with LangChain integration and AI agent nodes for building autonomous workflows. Make has native modules for OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, and Stability AI that are easier to set up. n8n wins for complex AI workflows; Make wins for simple AI integrations.
Technically yes—you could use Make for its polished integrations and n8n for self-hosted AI processing, connecting them via webhooks. However, most teams pick one platform to avoid the complexity of maintaining two.