If you're comparing n8n vs Make, you're choosing between two different philosophies of workflow automation: an open-source platform you can self-host versus a polished cloud-native visual builder.
Both tools let you connect apps, automate repetitive tasks, and build multi-step workflows. The real difference is in how much control you want—and how much you're willing to manage.
The core difference
Make (formerly Integromat) is a cloud-hosted visual automation platform. You sign up, connect apps, drag nodes onto a canvas, and run workflows. No servers to manage, no infrastructure to think about. The tradeoff: your data flows through Make's cloud, and pricing scales with usage.
n8n started as an open-source alternative you could self-host. You get unlimited workflows on your own infrastructure, full control over your data, and the ability to write custom code when the visual builder isn't enough. The tradeoff: you're responsible for keeping it running.
When to choose Make
Make wins when you want automation without infrastructure overhead:
Non-technical teams: Ops, marketing, and support teams can build workflows without touching code
Quick setup: Connect apps and ship automations in hours, not days
2,000+ integrations: Native connectors for most SaaS tools out of the box
Reliable uptime: Make handles scaling, updates, and security
Make's visual canvas is genuinely excellent for multi-path workflows. Routers let you branch logic cleanly, and the interface makes complex scenarios readable at a glance.
The pricing model is operation-based—you pay for each step executed across all your workflows. For simple automations that run occasionally, this is cost-effective. For high-volume or complex workflows, costs add up.
When to choose n8n
n8n wins when you need control:
Self-hosting: Your data never leaves your infrastructure
Complex logic: JavaScript/Python nodes for when visual builders aren't enough
Unlimited executions: Self-hosted n8n has no per-execution fees
Custom integrations: Build nodes for internal APIs or unsupported services
AI workflows: Native LangChain integration, RAG pipelines, and agent orchestration
If you're building automations that touch sensitive data, work at high volume, or require custom code, n8n gives you flexibility that Make can't match.
The tradeoff is real: you need to run a server, handle updates, and debug issues yourself. n8n Cloud exists for teams who want n8n's features without self-hosting, but the pricing model changes significantly.
Pricing comparison
Make: Free tier available. Paid plans start at $9/month for basic usage, scaling based on operations (each workflow step counts). Enterprise pricing for high-volume needs.
n8n self-hosted: Free and unlimited. You pay only for your own infrastructure (a small VPS can run thousands of workflows).
n8n Cloud: Starts at ~$20/month for 2,500 executions. Pro tier at ~$50/month for 10,000 executions. Enterprise plans available.
For simple, low-frequency automations, Make's pricing is often cheaper and simpler. For complex, high-volume workflows, self-hosted n8n is dramatically more cost-effective.
AI and agent capabilities
Both platforms now support AI integrations, but n8n has gone deeper:
n8n: Built-in LangChain nodes, AI agent templates, RAG pipeline support, custom model connections. If you're building AI-powered automations—content processing, lead qualification, multi-agent systems—n8n provides more control.
Make: AI features through OpenAI/Anthropic connectors. Good for straightforward "summarize this" or "generate that" use cases. Less suited for complex AI orchestration.
If AI automation is core to your workflow, n8n's agent-first architecture gives you more room to grow.
The Zo angle
If you're already on Zo Computer, you have a third option: skip both and use Zo's built-in automation.
Zo Agents are scheduled AI tasks that run on your server. They can read files, browse the web, connect to apps, and send notifications—all described in plain English. No visual builder, no node configuration. Just tell Zo what you want done.
For workflows that would require AI + web browsing + file operations, Zo's approach is often simpler than wiring up n8n or Make.
You can also self-host n8n on Zo if you want the visual builder. Zo handles the server; you get n8n's unlimited workflows without managing infrastructure yourself.
Decision framework
Start with Make if:
Your team is non-technical
You need fast time-to-value
Workflows are moderate complexity and volume
You want zero infrastructure management
Start with n8n if:
You have technical resources
Data sovereignty matters (regulatory, security, or preference)
You're building high-volume or AI-heavy workflows
You want unlimited executions without per-operation costs
Consider Zo Agents if:
Your workflows are naturally described in plain language
You're already using Zo for other work
You want AI-powered automation without building visual workflows
Many teams evolve: start with Make for quick wins, migrate to self-hosted n8n as complexity grows and costs become a concern.
The right tool depends on your team, your workflows, and how much you want to own versus outsource.