Make vs n8n: Visual Automation Platforms Compared
Make and n8n both offer visual, node-based automation builders — but Make stays fully cloud-hosted while n8n gives you a self-hosting path. This comparison helps you weigh flexibility, cost at scale, and who maintains the infrastructure.
Two Visual Builders, Different Deployment Models
Make (formerly Integromat) runs entirely in Make's cloud. You design scenarios with modules, routers, and filters in a canvas-style editor. Operations are metered, and Make manages all execution infrastructure.
n8n offers the same visual paradigm with an open-source self-host option. You can run it on a VPS, Docker, or Kubernetes — or use n8n Cloud if you prefer managed hosting.
Both support webhooks, HTTP calls, and branching logic. The decision often comes down to whether you need European data residency via self-hosting or prefer Make's polished SaaS experience.
Operations, Credits, and Scaling Costs
Make bills by operations — each module action counts. Complex scenarios with routers and iterators multiply usage quickly. Enterprise plans add features but the meter still ties cost to volume.
Self-hosted n8n removes the per-operation platform fee. Your costs shift to server sizing, monitoring, and developer time for updates. High-volume businesses often break even quickly against Make's operation tiers.
We help clients model expected volume during discovery so you are not surprised by platform bills six months after launch.
Integrations and Extensibility
Make ships a large library of pre-built app modules with solid error handling UI. Connecting mainstream SaaS tools is fast and well documented.
n8n's integration catalog grows continuously and includes community nodes. Custom integrations via HTTP Request or JavaScript are first-class — useful when you connect internal APIs or legacy systems Make does not support natively.
For bespoke internal tools, n8n's extensibility wins. For all-SaaS stacks with standard apps, Make's module quality and scenario templates save setup time.
Maintenance and Agency Delivery
Make scenarios require no server patching — you focus on logic and monitoring execution history in the dashboard.
Self-hosted n8n requires version upgrades, credential rotation, and backup strategy. Many teams partner with an agency for ongoing maintenance scoped as separate project work when needed.
The MAZ Solutions delivers automation builds as fixed-scope projects from $2,500+ — workflow design, implementation, testing, documentation, and handoff. Platform subscriptions remain yours to manage.
Quick Comparison
| Factor | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Cloud only | Self-host or n8n Cloud |
| Pricing | Operations-based plans | Self-host: server costs; Cloud: executions |
| Visual builder | Scenario canvas | Node workflow canvas |
| Custom APIs | HTTP modules | HTTP + JS + custom nodes |
| Ops responsibility | Make handles infra | Self-host: your team or agency |
Frequently Asked Questions
Make's module library and templates feel polished for standard SaaS connections. n8n has a learning curve around self-hosting but offers more control. We often recommend Make for simple stacks and n8n when volume or custom logic dominates.
Deciding between Make and n8n?
Walk us through your scenarios and volume. We will recommend the right platform and quote the build.