n8n vs Make: Which Workflow Automation Tool Should You Choose?
Disclosure: This post contains one or more links to providers we have a real, registered affiliate/referral relationship with. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you if you sign up through them.
If you’ve spent any time evaluating workflow automation platforms, you’ve hit the n8n vs Make debate. Both tools let you connect APIs, automate repetitive tasks, and build integration pipelines without writing a full application from scratch — but they take fundamentally different approaches to deployment, pricing, and extensibility.
This guide breaks down n8n vs Make from a developer and sysadmin perspective: what each tool actually does, how they handle self-hosting, what the real costs look like at scale, and which one you should pick for your specific use case.
What Is n8n?
n8n is an open-source, node-based workflow automation tool. It’s built in TypeScript, ships as a Docker image, and can be self-hosted on your own infrastructure or used via n8n Cloud. The name stands for “nodemation,” and the core pitch is fair-code licensing — you can view and modify the source, self-host for free, and only pay if you use their managed cloud offering or exceed certain usage thresholds under the Sustainable Use License.
For developers, the killer feature is the Code node, which lets you drop raw JavaScript (or Python via a community node) directly into a workflow step. That means you’re never fully boxed in by the visual builder — if a connector doesn’t exist, you write it.
Core n8n Features
What Is Make (formerly Integromat)?
Make is a cloud-only visual automation platform, rebranded from Integromat in 2022. It uses a “scenario” model — modules connected on a canvas — and is generally considered more polished and beginner-friendly than n8n out of the box. Make does not offer a self-hosted version; everything runs on their infrastructure, and pricing is based on “operations” consumed per billing cycle.
Make shines for non-technical teams who want drag-and-drop automation without touching a terminal. It has strong error-handling visualizations, a cleaner UI for mapping data between apps, and a large library of pre-built app connectors maintained by Make’s own team.
Core Make Features
n8n vs Make: Pricing Comparison
This is where the two tools diverge hardest. Make bills you per operation, which sounds fine until a workflow runs thousands of times a day across multiple modules — costs scale directly with usage. n8n’s self-hosted tier is free (you only pay for your own server), while n8n Cloud uses execution-based pricing that’s generally more generous at the entry tier.
If you’re running high-volume workflows — say, syncing data every few minutes across multiple systems — self-hosted n8n is almost always cheaper long-term, because you’re paying for compute, not per-execution metering. We cover how to size that compute correctly in our guide to choosing a VPS for Docker workloads.
Self-Hosting and Deployment
This is the single biggest differentiator in the n8n vs Make comparison: n8n can run entirely on infrastructure you control, Make cannot.
A minimal self-hosted n8n deployment with Docker Compose looks like this:
“yaml
version: "3.8"
services:
n8n:
image: n8nio/n8n:latest
restart: unless-stopped
ports:
- "5678:5678"
environment:
- N8N_HOST=automation.yourdomain.com
- N8N_PORT=5678
- N8N_PROTOCOL=https
- NODE_ENV=production
- N8N_ENCRYPTION_KEY=${N8N_ENCRYPTION_KEY}
- DB_TYPE=postgresdb
- DB_POSTGRESDB_HOST=postgres
- DB_POSTGRESDB_DATABASE=n8n
- DB_POSTGRESDB_USER=n8n
- DB_POSTGRESDB_PASSWORD=${POSTGRES_PASSWORD}
volumes:
- n8n_data:/home/node/.n8n
depends_on:
- postgres
postgres:
image: postgres:16-alpine
restart: unless-stopped
environment:
- POSTGRES_USER=n8n
- POSTGRES_PASSWORD=${POSTGRES_PASSWORD}
- POSTGRES_DB=n8n
volumes:
- postgres_data:/var/lib/postgresql/data
volumes:
n8n_data:
postgres_data:
`
Run it with:
`bash`
export N8N_ENCRYPTION_KEY=$(openssl rand -hex 24)
export POSTGRES_PASSWORD=$(openssl rand -hex 16)
docker compose up -d
Put this behind a reverse proxy with TLS (Caddy or Traefik both work well) and you have a production-grade automation server for the cost of a small VPS. We walk through the full reverse-proxy setup in our Docker Compose deployment guide.
For reliable uptime on a self-hosted instance, a provider like DigitalOcean or Hetzner gives you predictable pricing and enough headroom to run n8n plus Postgres comfortably on a $6-$12/month droplet or CX22 instance. If uptime matters for business-critical automations, pair your instance with BetterStack for uptime monitoring and incident alerting — self-hosting means you own the reliability, so monitor accordingly.
Make, by contrast, requires zero infrastructure knowledge. You sign up, connect your apps via OAuth, and build. That simplicity is the entire value proposition — but it also means you're fully dependent on Make's uptime, rate limits, and pricing changes.
Ease of Use and Learning Curve
Make generally wins on initial onboarding. Its module-mapping interface makes data transformation between apps visually intuitive — you click a field, drag it to the target, done. n8n's node editor is powerful but assumes more comfort with JSON, expressions, and occasionally raw code.
That said, n8n's expression editor ({{ $json.fieldName }} syntax) is straightforward once you've used it a few times, and the built-in Code node means you're never stuck waiting for an official connector — you can just call the API directly:
`javascriptBearer ${$credentials.apiToken}
const response = await this.helpers.httpRequest({
method: 'GET',
url: 'https://api.example.com/v1/status',
headers: {
Authorization:
}
});
return [{ json: response }];
`
Teams with at least one developer tend to outgrow Make's constraints faster than they outgrow n8n's, simply because n8n gives you an escape hatch into real code.
Integrations and Extensibility
Make has a larger catalog of pre-built connectors out of the box — roughly 2,000+ compared to n8n's 400+. But raw connector count is misleading: n8n's HTTP Request node combined with the Code node means you can integrate with virtually any REST or GraphQL API even without a dedicated node, whereas Make's no-code-only model makes truly custom integrations more cumbersome.
n8n also supports community nodes — npm packages that extend functionality — and because it's open source, you can fork it and build entirely custom nodes for internal tools. Make has no equivalent; you're limited to what Make's team builds or what you can construct with their generic HTTP module.
Performance and Scalability
For high-throughput automation (thousands of executions per hour), self-hosted n8n scales with your infrastructure — you can run it in queue mode with Redis and multiple worker containers to horizontally scale execution:
`bash`
docker run -d
-e EXECUTIONS_MODE=queue
-e QUEUE_BULL_REDIS_HOST=redis
-e N8N_ENCRYPTION_KEY=$N8N_ENCRYPTION_KEY
n8nio/n8n worker
Make's scalability is entirely dictated by your plan tier and their platform's rate limits. You can't add compute to speed up execution — you upgrade your plan or wait. For teams with unpredictable or bursty automation needs, that's a real constraint.
Which Should You Choose?
The honest answer depends on who's running the automation:
For most readers of a technical blog like this one — people comfortable with Docker, VPS management, and reverse proxies — self-hosted n8n is the more cost-effective and future-proof choice. You're not locked into a vendor's pricing changes, and you retain full control over your data and execution environment.
If you're just getting started, spin up a test instance on a cheap VPS this week, connect two or three of your actual tools, and see how far the Code node takes you before deciding whether Make's polish is worth the recurring operation costs.
Recommended: Want to explore DigitalOcean yourself? DigitalOcean is a direct vendor link (not an affiliate/tracked link).
FAQ
Is n8n really free?
Self-hosted n8n is free to run under its Sustainable Use License — you can use it for internal business automation without paying license fees. You only pay for the server it runs on. n8n Cloud (their managed hosting) is a separate paid product.
Can I migrate workflows from Make to n8n?
There's no automated migration tool between the two platforms since they use different scenario/workflow formats. You'll need to manually rebuild workflows, though the underlying logic (triggers, actions, conditionals) usually maps over conceptually without much friction.
Is Make more reliable than self-hosted n8n?
Make's infrastructure is professionally managed with high uptime SLAs on paid plans. A self-hosted n8n instance is only as reliable as the server and monitoring you set up around it — which is why pairing it with uptime monitoring is important for production use.
Does n8n support webhooks like Make does?
Yes. n8n has native Webhook trigger nodes that generate a unique URL per workflow, functionally equivalent to Make's webhook modules. You can test one instantly with a simple curl request: curl -X POST https://your-n8n-instance.com/webhook/test-id -d ‘{“key”:”value”}’`.
Which tool is better for a solo developer?
n8n tends to win for solo developers because it’s free to self-host, gives full code-level control, and doesn’t penalize experimentation with per-operation billing. Make’s free tier caps out quickly once you’re testing multiple workflows.
Can I run n8n on Kubernetes instead of Docker Compose?
Yes — n8n publishes official Helm charts, and the same queue-mode architecture used for Docker scaling applies to Kubernetes deployments, letting you run separate worker pods for execution load.
Leave a Reply