n8n vs Make 2026

The short answer

Both tools build visual, multi-step automations, but they price and deploy in opposite ways. Make is cloud-only and charges per operation, which makes it the faster path for teams that want to launch this week and never touch a server. n8n can self-host for free with unlimited executions, which makes it the pick when data privacy, cost at scale, or custom code matters more than setup speed.

The billing models decide more than the feature lists

This is the part most comparisons bury, and it is where your real cost lives.

Make bills by operation. Every module that runs in a scenario counts as one operation, so a ten-step workflow that fires twice a day burns roughly 600 operations a month. The free plan includes 1,000 operations per month with a minimum 15-minute check interval, and paid plans start around $10 a month for 10,000 operations. Simple workflows stay cheap. Deep, branching workflows multiply fast.

n8n’s cloud plans bill per workflow execution instead, so a ten-step workflow costs the same as a two-step one as long as it runs once. But the decisive option is the self-hosted Community Edition: free software with unlimited workflows and executions, where your only real cost is the server, often a few dollars a month on a small VPS. If your automations run thousands of times a month, that gap eventually becomes the whole decision.

Where Make wins

Make’s visual canvas is the best in the category for mapping a complex route before you build it. You can see branching, loops, and error handlers on one screen, and the app catalog covers the SaaS tools most teams already use. Because everything is hosted, there is nothing to maintain, updates just appear, and a non-technical teammate can inherit your scenarios without learning a deployment process.

If your team has no one who wants to own a server, that alone settles the comparison.

Where n8n wins

n8n gives you control at every layer. You can self-host so customer data never leaves your infrastructure, which matters for regulated industries and security reviews. You can drop JavaScript or Python into a node when a native integration falls short, chain your own API calls, and version the whole setup in git. Newer releases also lean into AI work, with nodes for building LLM-driven agents into a workflow.

The trade-off is setup and upkeep. Self-hosting means updates, backups, and monitoring are your job, and the node system has a learning curve that Make mostly hides.

How to choose

Three questions usually settle it:

1. Who hosts it? If nobody on the team wants that job, choose Make.
2. What does your volume look like? High-run, deep workflows get expensive in operations but stay flat-cost in self-hosted n8n.
3. Do you need custom code or strict data control? n8n handles both; Make does neither.

One more note before you decide: if your automations stay at the trigger-and-action level, like moving form entries into a spreadsheet or routing approvals, a full workflow platform may be more than the job needs. The roundup of no-code automation tools for admin work covers lighter options, including both of these tools in a wider comparison.

For anything deeper, the honest summary is this: Make optimizes for getting a working automation fast, and n8n optimizes for owning the automation for years. Price a realistic month of runs in both models, and the right choice usually announces itself.