n8n vs Make for AI Workflow Automation

n8n and Make are the two automation platforms everyone shortlists in 2026, and the honest answer to "which is better" depends on one question: do your workflows have many steps, and does your team touch code? We have built the same automations on both. Here is the practical comparison, with current pricing and a clear recommendation.

TL;DR: Make is easier to start with and cheaper for simple, short workflows. n8n is dramatically cheaper at scale, self-hostable for free, and has become the default platform for AI agent workflows. Most technical teams end up on n8n; most non-technical teams stay happy on Make.

Overview

n8n is a fair-code workflow automation platform with roughly 196,000 GitHub stars, a free self-hosted Community Edition, and a managed cloud offering. Its node-based editor mixes visual building with the ability to drop into JavaScript or Python anywhere. Make (formerly Integromat) is a fully managed visual automation platform known for its polished scenario builder and a large library of prebuilt app modules. Both automate the same core job; they differ sharply in pricing model, extensibility, and AI capabilities.

Feature Differences

Make wins on approachability: the visual scenario builder is the best in the category for non-developers, and its module library covers 2,000+ apps with no code required. n8n wins on power: custom code steps, branching and looping without workarounds, reusable sub-workflows, and an HTTP node that can talk to any API even when no prebuilt integration exists. In 2026 the biggest differentiator is AI: n8n ships native AI agent nodes (built on LangChain) for building multi-step agents with memory and tool use, which is why it has become the go-to for AI automation builders. Make offers AI modules and an AI assistant, but agent-style workflows hit its structural limits faster.

Pricing & Value (2026)

Current pricing, verified July 2026:

• n8n Cloud: Starter at €20/month billed annually for 2,500 workflow executions, Pro at €50/month for 10,000 executions, Business at €667/month for 40,000 executions with SSO and scaling options. Every plan allows unlimited workflow steps and unlimited users.
• n8n self-hosted (Community Edition): free, unlimited executions, you manage the server. A small VPS runs it comfortably.
• Make: Free plan with 1,000 credits per month, paid plans from $9/month for 5,000 credits, with larger credit tiers above that and roughly 15% off on annual billing. Each module action in a scenario consumes one credit.

The pricing models are the real story. Make charges per operation: every step in a scenario burns a credit, so a 20-step workflow that runs 1,000 times costs 20,000 credits. n8n charges per execution: that same workflow run 1,000 times costs 1,000 executions regardless of how many steps it contains. For short 2-3 step automations the difference is small and Make's $9 entry is cheaper. For complex, high-volume workflows - exactly what AI automations tend to be - n8n is routinely 5-10x cheaper, and self-hosting removes the ceiling entirely.

Performance and Output Quality

Make's managed cloud delivers consistent, hands-off reliability with enterprise SLAs on higher tiers. n8n Cloud is similarly dependable, while self-hosted n8n performs as well as the server you give it - that control is a feature for DevOps-capable teams and a risk for everyone else. For long-running, branching AI workflows, n8n's execution model (one execution regardless of steps) also means fewer artificial timeouts and less workflow-splitting than Make's scenario limits force at scale.

Integrations and Workflow Fit

Make offers 2,000+ prebuilt app modules, the larger catalog. n8n ships 400+ native integrations plus community nodes, and its HTTP Request node covers anything with an API, which in practice closes most gaps for technical users. If your team will never write a line of code and lives in mainstream SaaS apps, Make's catalog reduces friction. If your stack includes internal APIs, databases, or LLM providers, n8n fits better.

Support and Reliability

Make provides tiered support with priority options and enterprise SLAs. n8n Cloud plans include support, while self-hosted users rely on documentation and one of the most active automation communities anywhere (the n8n forum and template library are genuinely useful for debugging). Enterprises that need contractual uptime guarantees on a managed platform will find Make's support packaging more conventional.

Migration and Adoption Effort

Make is faster to first value: templates, import wizards, and the gentlest learning curve in the category. n8n takes a day or two longer to feel at home and its 4,000+ community workflow templates shortcut most common builds. Moving between the two later is manual either way - neither imports the other's workflows - so the platform choice is stickier than it looks. Choose for where you will be in a year, not for week one.

Risk Flags and Limitations

n8n self-hosting requires real infrastructure ownership: updates, backups, and scaling are on you, and an unmaintained instance is a reliability risk. Make's credit model is the budget risk: costs climb with workflow complexity, and teams routinely discover a scenario redesign is needed purely to save credits. Factor both into total cost of ownership before committing.

Final Recommendation

Choose n8n if you build AI agent workflows, have any technical capability in the team, run high-volume or many-step automations, or want the free self-hosted escape hatch. Choose Make if you want the easiest visual builder, mostly connect mainstream SaaS apps in short workflows, and prefer a fully managed platform with conventional support. On pure price-per-work-done at scale, n8n wins; on time-to-first-automation for non-developers, Make wins.

FAQ