n8n vs Make: Open-Source vs SaaS Automation Compared for 2026
n8n and Make are both powerful automation tools for complex workflows. The key difference: n8n is open-source and self-hostable; Make is a managed SaaS.
| Feature / Aspect | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | Yes, MIT license, self-hostable | No (proprietary SaaS) |
| Self-Hosting | Full self-host on any server | Cloud only |
| Pricing (cloud) | From $20/mo (or free if self-hosted) | From $9/mo (1k ops) |
| Code in Workflows | Full JS/Python nodes | Limited (no code execution) |
| Visual Builder | Node-based flowchart | Flowchart with modules |
| Integrations | 400+ built-in + any HTTP | 1,500+ apps native |
| Complexity Ceiling | No ceiling (code nodes) | High but no custom code |
| Community | Growing open-source community | Large SaaS community |
When to choose each
n8n, Better for self-hosting & cost
Choose n8n when you need better for self-hosting & cost. Our team uses n8n for the majority of our client projects where it applies.
Build with us using n8n →Make, Better for SaaS simplicity
Choose Make when you need better for saas simplicity.
Our verdict
n8n is the choice for technically-capable teams who want maximum control and lowest long-term cost. Self-hosting on a $10/mo VPS means unlimited executions for free. The ability to write real JS/Python inside workflows removes all complexity ceilings.
Make is better for teams that don't want to manage infrastructure, need access to its 1,500+ native app connectors, and are comfortable with a SaaS subscription model.
We use both at App Studio: n8n for self-hosted automations where cost or code flexibility matters, Make for integrations where it has a native connector that n8n lacks.
Not sure which to choose?
Book a free consultation →Visual canvas vs open-source power
n8n is an open-source workflow automation tool with a node-based visual canvas, full JavaScript and Python execution inside workflows, and a self-hosted deployment option that runs entirely on your own infrastructure. Make (formerly Integromat) is a cloud-hosted SaaS automation platform with a polished canvas interface and 1,000+ native app connectors. Both tools compete directly with Zapier for automation workflows, and both are more capable than Zapier for complex multi-step scenarios.
The defining difference between the two is how they handle hosting and pricing. n8n can be self-hosted for free on any server or VM, making it the clear winner for teams that run high automation volumes or need full data sovereignty. Make is cloud only: all automations run on Make's infrastructure and are priced per operation, which makes costs predictable at low volume but expensive at scale.
n8n is also fair-code open source, meaning anyone can inspect the source, fork it, or contribute. This matters for teams with GDPR obligations or strict data residency requirements, as self-hosted n8n means no data ever leaves your own infrastructure. Make's SaaS model means data transits through Make's European or US servers depending on your plan and region settings.
Full feature comparison: n8n vs Make
| Feature | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Self-hosted (free) or n8n.cloud | Cloud only |
| Open source | Yes (fair-code) | No |
| Pricing model | Per active workflow (cloud) or free (self-host) | Operations (per module run) |
| Free tier | Unlimited self-hosted | 1,000 ops/month |
| Entry cloud paid | $24/month (5 active workflows) | $9/month (10K ops) |
| Visual interface | Canvas (similar) | Canvas (excellent) |
| Custom code | Full JavaScript + Python nodes | JavaScript (limited) |
| Error handling | Very strong | Strong (retry, alerts) |
| App integrations | 400+ native, unlimited via HTTP | 1,000+ |
| Data transformation | Very strong (code nodes) | Strong (built-in functions) |
| Best for | Technical teams, high volume, cost control | Visual-first teams, cloud SaaS |
n8n's technical depth
n8n allows full JavaScript and Python execution inside workflow nodes. This means you can write custom logic, call any API, parse complex data, or implement algorithms that no visual tool supports. A code node in n8n can replace what would otherwise require a dedicated serverless function or a third-party microservice.
When a native connector does not exist, n8n's HTTP Request node can connect to any REST API with full header, authentication, and body configuration. Combined with code nodes for data transformation, this means n8n has no practical integration ceiling. Developers who already work with APIs and JavaScript find n8n's model intuitive, and the open-source community has contributed hundreds of custom nodes and workflow templates.
Make's UX edge
Make's canvas interface is arguably the most polished in the automation space. Scenarios are easy to read visually, modules are well-labeled, and the built-in data transformation functions cover most use cases without writing code. For agencies and no-code teams who build automation for clients, Make's UX makes handoffs easier: a client who has never seen a workflow builder can usually understand a Make scenario after a brief walkthrough.
Make also has a broader native connector library at 1,000+ apps vs n8n's 400+ built-in integrations. For teams that rely on less common SaaS tools, Make is more likely to have a ready-made connector. That said, n8n's HTTP node covers any REST API, so the gap matters mainly when you want a pre-configured connector with field mapping built in rather than having to construct API calls manually.
Cost comparison at scale
Example scenario: a SaaS product running 10,000 automation runs per month, with 8 modules per run. That equals 80,000 operations on Make, which fits the Core plan at $29/month. The same workload on self-hosted n8n costs only the server: roughly 10 to 20 euros per month on a basic VPS.
At 500,000 runs per month, Make costs $300 or more depending on the plan and module count. Self-hosted n8n still costs 10 to 20 euros per month in server fees. The automation logic itself runs free. This is the primary reason high-growth SaaS teams and technical agencies choose n8n as their automation infrastructure.
n8n.cloud is also available for teams who want managed hosting without the operational overhead. The Starter plan at $24/month includes 5 active workflows. This is more expensive than Make at low volume, but becomes cost-competitive as workflow complexity and run count grow, since n8n charges per workflow rather than per operation.
When to choose each tool
Choose n8n when
- Your team has a developer available to manage infrastructure
- You run high-volume automations where per-operation cost matters
- You need custom JavaScript or Python logic inside workflows
- You have data privacy or GDPR requirements that require self-hosting
- You want open-source tooling with no vendor lock-in
Choose Make when
- Your team is no-code or low-code and wants the best visual canvas
- You are building client automations that need to be handed off
- You prefer a managed cloud platform with no server maintenance
- Your automation volume is moderate, under 100,000 ops per month
- You need access to 1,000+ native app connectors without HTTP configuration
App Studio's recommendation
For high-volume or developer-managed automations, App Studio recommends n8n self-hosted. The cost savings are substantial at scale, the code node capability removes all complexity ceilings, and self-hosting satisfies GDPR data residency requirements without additional configuration. For client SaaS products where the client will own and operate the automation after delivery, we use Make because its clean interface makes handoffs viable for non-technical users. Zapier is reserved for simple one-step internal ops tasks where speed of setup matters more than cost or flexibility.
n8n vs Make: common questions
Is n8n better than Make?
n8n is better than Make for technical teams who need custom code in workflows, self-hosting for cost or compliance, or high-volume automations where per-operation pricing becomes expensive. Self-hosted n8n is free at any volume and supports full JavaScript and Python execution, which Make does not. For non-technical teams who want a polished managed SaaS, Make is the better fit.
Is n8n free compared to Make?
Self-hosted n8n is completely free: you pay only for the server it runs on, typically 10 to 20 euros per month for a basic VPS that can handle hundreds of thousands of runs. Make has a free tier of 1,000 operations per month, which is useful for testing but not for production use. At any meaningful volume, self-hosted n8n is dramatically cheaper than Make.
Can n8n replace Make?
n8n can replace Make for most automation use cases, including multi-step workflows, API integrations, data transformation, and scheduled triggers. Where n8n requires more setup effort is in connecting apps that have a native Make connector but no native n8n connector, since you would need to configure the HTTP node manually. For teams with a developer available, this is a minor inconvenience. For purely no-code teams, Make's native connector library may be a meaningful advantage.
Which is better: n8n or Make?
n8n is the choice for technically-capable teams who want maximum control and lowest long-term cost. Self-hosting on a $10/mo VPS means unlimited executions for free. The ability to write real JS/Python inside workflows removes all complexity ceilings.
When should I use n8n instead of Make?
n8n is better for self-hosting, cost control at high volume, custom code requirements, and data privacy. If your team has developer resources and your automation volume is growing, n8n self-hosted will save significant money compared to Make's per-operation pricing.
Can App Studio build with n8n?
Yes, we are certified experts in the no-code and low-code stack. Book a free call to discuss your project and we'll recommend the right tool for your use case.