n8n and Make are two powerful automation platforms, but they are optimized for different types of teams and different ways of scaling workflows. n8n gives technical teams more control through code steps, custom nodes, self-hosting, AI-agent tooling, and execution-based pricing. Make emphasizes visual-first automation, a broad app ecosystem, a permanent free plan, and fast scenario building for teams that want less infrastructure responsibility.
This n8n vs Make 2026 comparison covers current pricing, workflow limits, credits versus executions, AI agents, integrations, self-hosting, developer control, ease of use, scalability, and the tradeoffs that matter when choosing an automation platform.
Research note: pricing and feature availability were checked against current official n8n and Make sources in September 2026. Both platforms continue to change AI features, usage models, limits, and plan packaging, so verify final terms before purchasing.
n8n vs Make 2026: Quick Comparison
| Area | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Core approach | Flexible workflow and AI automation platform with strong developer control | Visual-first automation and AI orchestration platform |
| Free option | 14-day cloud trial; self-hosted Community Edition available | Permanent Free plan with 1,000 credits/month |
| Entry paid plan | Starter: €20/month billed annually for 2,500 workflow executions | Core: currently displayed at $12/month for 10,000 credits/month |
| Usage model | Primarily priced by complete workflow executions, regardless of step count | Credits are consumed by module actions and selected AI operations |
| Integrations | 1,000+ apps and services listed in the integrations directory | 3,000+ apps and integrations |
| AI agents | AI-agent workflows with code, logic, human-in-the-loop controls, and model flexibility | Visual AI Agents integrated into Make scenarios; current new agent app remains in open beta |
| Self-hosting | Yes, including Community Edition plus paid self-hosted options | Public plans are centered on Make’s managed cloud platform |
| Code and extensibility | JavaScript/Python code steps, HTTP/GraphQL, custom nodes on self-hosted deployments | Primarily visual/no-code, with code and developer tools available for selected use cases |
| Best fit | Technical teams, complex logic, custom infrastructure, AI workflows, self-hosting | Business teams, visual automation, broad SaaS connectivity, fast deployment |
Compare current plans
Ready to compare pricing? Review the latest plan details directly from each provider.
What Is n8n?
n8n is a workflow automation platform designed for teams that want more control over how automations are built, deployed, and extended. It combines a visual workflow editor with developer-oriented features such as JavaScript and Python code steps, API requests, webhooks, custom nodes, workflow APIs, and self-hosting options.
n8n has also expanded deeply into AI automation. Teams can build AI-agent workflows, connect language models and vector stores, coordinate multi-agent systems, use human-in-the-loop approvals, and combine deterministic workflow logic with AI decision-making.
For a broader platform breakdown, see our n8n Review 2026.
What Is Make?
Make is a visual automation platform for connecting applications, data sources, APIs, and AI services. Its scenario builder lets users drag, drop, connect, filter, route, and transform data while keeping the automation visually understandable.
Make has expanded from traditional no-code automation into AI orchestration. Its platform now includes Make AI Agents, AI tools, prompt-assisted building, MCP-related capabilities, and more than 3,000 integrations across business software and AI services.
Read our complete Make Review 2026 for more detail.
n8n vs Make Pricing in 2026
Pricing is one of the most important differences because the two platforms measure usage differently. n8n’s current paid model is centered primarily on complete workflow executions. Make uses credits, where standard module actions such as reading data from an app or writing a row can consume credits.
| Platform / Plan | Published price reference | Included usage / note |
|---|---|---|
| n8n Starter | €20/month | Billed annually; 2,500 workflow executions; unlimited users and workflows |
| n8n Pro | €50/month | Billed annually; 10,000 workflow executions; higher concurrency and collaboration features |
| n8n Business | €667/month | Billed annually; self-hosted; 40,000 executions; SSO, environments, Git version control, scaling features |
| n8n Enterprise | Custom | Cloud or self-hosted; custom execution capacity and advanced governance |
| Make Free | $0 | Up to 1,000 credits/month; 15-minute minimum scheduled interval |
| Make Core | $12/month | Current public reference at 10,000 credits/month; unlimited active scenarios |
| Make Pro | $21/month | Current public reference at 10,000 credits/month; priority execution and advanced controls |
| Make Teams | $38/month | Current public reference at 10,000 credits/month; team roles and shared templates |
| Make Enterprise | Custom | Advanced security, enterprise integrations, support, and governance |
Pricing note: Make’s displayed prices can vary with billing selection and credit volume. n8n pricing can vary by execution tier, cloud versus self-hosting needs, and enterprise requirements. AI usage can introduce additional limits or credits on either platform. Always compare the workload your automations will actually generate.
Executions vs Credits: The Most Important Pricing Difference
n8n counts a workflow execution when the workflow runs from start to finish. The number of steps inside that workflow does not directly multiply the execution count. This can make complex, multi-step automations easier to estimate when a single trigger launches many downstream actions.
Make’s model is more granular. A scenario is composed of modules, and standard module actions consume credits. A workflow that performs many operations can therefore use multiple credits per run. This makes scenario design, operation volume, polling frequency, and AI usage important parts of cost forecasting.
Neither model is automatically cheaper in every situation. A simple high-volume workflow and a complex low-volume workflow can produce very different economics. Estimate realistic monthly runs and operations before choosing a plan.
Free Plan and Trial
Make has the clearer permanent cloud free tier. Its Free plan currently includes up to 1,000 credits per month, the visual workflow builder, routers and filters, access to its app ecosystem, and a 15-minute minimum interval for scheduled scenarios.
n8n offers a 14-day cloud trial rather than a permanent free cloud plan. However, n8n also provides a Community Edition for self-hosting. That makes the free comparison less straightforward: Make is easier for someone who wants a hosted free account, while n8n can be attractive to technical users willing to manage their own infrastructure.
Workflow Builder and Ease of Use
Both platforms are visual, but their interfaces reflect different priorities.
Make is strongly visual-first. Scenarios are built by connecting modules on a canvas, then configuring routes, filters, data mapping, iterators, aggregators, and error-handling behavior. For business users who understand the apps involved but do not want to manage infrastructure or write much code, the interface can make complex processes easier to inspect.
n8n also uses a node-based visual editor, but it exposes more technical control. Users can drop into JavaScript or Python, issue custom API requests, manipulate data structures, use expressions extensively, and extend self-hosted environments with custom nodes. This flexibility can reduce platform limitations, but it can also create a steeper learning curve for nontechnical users.
n8n AI Agents vs Make AI Agents
Both platforms now treat AI agents as part of the automation layer rather than as isolated chatbots.
n8n emphasizes production-oriented AI workflows for technical teams. Its agent tooling can combine LLMs, memory, tools, retrievers, vector stores, deterministic logic, and human approvals. Teams can also coordinate multiple specialized agents inside a broader workflow.
Make AI Agents focus on visually orchestrating agent decisions alongside standard automation. The platform highlights transparent reasoning, visible tool use, reusable agents, shared team workflows, and connections across more than 3,000 apps. Make’s current help documentation notes that the new Make AI Agent app remains in open beta, so functionality and pricing may continue to change.
For teams experimenting with agentic automation, Make provides a more visual path. For teams that need deeper control over logic, infrastructure, model connections, and guardrails, n8n offers a more developer-oriented environment.
Integrations: n8n vs Make
Make currently advertises more than 3,000 app integrations, giving it a major advantage for teams that want ready-made connectors across common SaaS products. Its catalog spans CRM, ecommerce, productivity, marketing, databases, AI tools, communication platforms, and many other categories.
n8n’s integrations directory lists more than 1,000 apps and services. The raw catalog is smaller, but n8n compensates with HTTP requests, GraphQL, webhooks, code steps, custom nodes, and self-hosted extensibility. For technical teams, a missing native connector is therefore not always a hard limitation.
Both platforms can also connect to many of the CRM tools already covered on AI Workflow Stack, including HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive, Zoho CRM, and Freshsales.
Self-Hosting and Infrastructure Control
This is one of the clearest differences. n8n explicitly supports self-hosting. Its Community Edition can be deployed on your own infrastructure, while paid Business and Enterprise options add collaboration, governance, scaling, and security capabilities for organizations that need more control.
Make’s public offering is centered on its managed cloud platform. That removes infrastructure management for the customer and simplifies deployment, but it does not provide the same self-hosting path as n8n.
If data residency, infrastructure ownership, custom networking, internal deployment standards, or direct control over the runtime are hard requirements, n8n has the stronger fit.
Developer Control and Custom Logic
n8n is particularly strong when workflows need custom logic. JavaScript and Python code steps, custom API calls, CLI access, custom nodes on self-hosted deployments, webhooks, and flexible data transformations make it possible to move beyond prebuilt connectors.
Make increasingly supports more technical workflows as well, and its product positioning now includes visual building, code, prompts, APIs, and developer tools. However, its core experience remains more visual and managed than n8n’s self-hostable, developer-oriented model.
Collaboration, Governance, and Enterprise Features
n8n expands governance as teams move into Business and Enterprise. Features can include SSO, SAML, LDAP, separate environments, Git-based version control, audit logging, external secret stores, log streaming, extended retention, and dedicated support depending on plan.
Make Teams adds team roles and shared scenario templates, while Enterprise adds advanced security, enterprise integrations, 24/7 support, overage protection, and other governance capabilities.
For most small teams, the practical difference is simpler: Make reduces infrastructure responsibility, while n8n gives technically capable teams more deployment and environment control.
n8n Pros and Tradeoffs
- Pros: Execution-based pricing; self-hosting; Community Edition; JavaScript and Python; custom nodes; strong API control; flexible AI-agent workflows; human-in-the-loop options.
- Tradeoffs: Steeper learning curve for nontechnical users; self-hosting requires infrastructure responsibility; managed cloud does not offer a permanent free tier.
Make Pros and Tradeoffs
- Pros: Visual-first builder; permanent free plan; 3,000+ integrations; fast SaaS connectivity; strong no-code workflow design; integrated AI-agent direction.
- Tradeoffs: Credit usage can scale with workflow operations; no equivalent self-hosted Community Edition; highly custom logic may require more workarounds than n8n.
n8n Is a Strong Fit When…
- You want to self-host or maintain more control over infrastructure.
- Your workflows require custom JavaScript, Python, APIs, or custom nodes.
- You are building complex AI agents or multi-agent workflows.
- You prefer pricing based on full workflow executions rather than individual module actions.
- Your automation team is comfortable with technical configuration and debugging.
- You need a path from visual automation into deeper developer control.
n8n looks like a fit? Check current cloud and self-hosting options, execution limits, and included features directly from n8n.
Make Is a Strong Fit When…
- You want a visual-first automation experience with minimal infrastructure management.
- Your workflows rely on a broad range of SaaS applications and ready-made connectors.
- You want a permanent hosted free plan for experimentation and smaller workflows.
- Your team is primarily made up of business users, operators, marketers, or no-code builders.
- You want to build traditional automations and AI-agent workflows in the same visual environment.
- Fast implementation matters more than self-hosting or deep runtime customization.
Make looks like a fit? Compare current credit allowances, plan features, and AI automation options directly from Make.
n8n vs Make for Small Businesses
Make can be easier for a small business that wants to start quickly without maintaining infrastructure. The Free plan gives teams a low-friction way to test scenarios, and the large integration catalog reduces the need for custom API work.
n8n can make more sense when the small business has technical capability, wants to self-host, or expects to build complex multi-step workflows where execution-based pricing is easier to forecast than per-operation credits.
n8n vs Make for Technical Teams
n8n has the stronger developer-oriented profile. Code steps, custom nodes, self-hosting, CLI access, custom APIs, AI-agent components, and deeper environment control create more room to customize the automation layer.
Make remains useful for technical teams that value visual orchestration and fast connector-based deployment, but n8n becomes more compelling as workflows need custom code, infrastructure control, or specialized AI logic.
n8n vs Make for Marketing and Operations Teams
Make’s visual-first design and broad SaaS catalog can be especially effective for marketing, operations, ecommerce, and revenue teams that need to connect forms, CRMs, email platforms, spreadsheets, project tools, databases, and AI services without writing much code.
n8n can support the same workflows, but its biggest advantages become more valuable when those teams also have technical support or need custom logic that goes beyond standard integrations.
How n8n and Make Compare With Other Automation Tools
If neither platform is an obvious match, compare Zapier for a broad mainstream automation ecosystem, Pipedream for developer-focused integrations and code workflows, or our existing Make vs Zapier 2026 comparison.
n8n vs Make 2026 FAQ
Which is cheaper, n8n or Make?
It depends on workflow shape and volume. n8n primarily charges by complete workflow executions, while Make uses credits for module actions and selected AI operations. Complex multi-step workflows may behave very differently under the two models, so estimate realistic monthly executions and operations rather than comparing only headline subscription prices.
Does n8n have a free plan?
n8n does not currently list a permanent free cloud plan. It offers a 14-day cloud trial and a self-hosted Community Edition.
Does Make have a free plan?
Yes. Make currently offers a permanent Free plan with up to 1,000 credits per month.
Can n8n be self-hosted?
Yes. n8n offers a self-hosted Community Edition and paid self-hosted options for organizations that need additional collaboration, governance, or scaling features.
Which has more integrations, n8n or Make?
Make currently advertises more than 3,000 integrations, while n8n’s integrations directory lists more than 1,000 apps and services. n8n also supports custom API requests, code, webhooks, and custom nodes, which can reduce the impact of a missing native connector for technical teams.
Do n8n and Make both support AI agents?
Yes. Both platforms support agentic automation. n8n emphasizes flexible AI workflows with code, logic, tools, memory, and human-in-the-loop controls. Make offers visual AI Agents integrated with its scenario canvas; its current new AI Agent app is still documented as open beta.
Which is easier to use, n8n or Make?
Make is generally easier for visual-first and no-code users because the platform is designed around managed cloud scenarios and prebuilt app modules. n8n is also visual, but its greater technical flexibility can require more knowledge of APIs, data structures, infrastructure, or code for advanced use cases.
n8n vs Make 2026: Final Takeaway
n8n is the stronger fit when control, extensibility, self-hosting, custom logic, and technical AI workflows are the priority. Its execution-based pricing also creates a different cost model for complex workflows with many steps.
Make is the stronger fit when visual building, a broad SaaS integration catalog, a permanent hosted free tier, and fast deployment matter most. It gives business teams a lower-friction path into automation while continuing to expand its AI-agent capabilities.
The practical choice comes down to operating model. Choose n8n when you want more control over the automation layer. Choose Make when you want more of the infrastructure and connector complexity handled for you.
Check current plans before choosing
Pricing, execution limits, credits, AI usage, and plan packaging can change. Review the latest details before making a purchase decision.
Continue researching: n8n Review 2026 | Make Review 2026 | Zapier Review 2026 | Pipedream Review 2026 | Make vs Zapier 2026
Official resources: n8n pricing | n8n AI Agents | n8n integrations | Make pricing | Make AI Agents | Make integrations