n8n vs Make vs Zapier: choosing an automation platform
- TypeComparison
- Reading time8 min
- Updated2026-08-18
Zapier is the simplest and most widely integrated, priced per task. Make offers more complex logic at lower per-operation cost. n8n is open source and can be self-hosted, removing usage pricing and keeping data on your own infrastructure. The choice usually comes down to volume, data policy, and how much logic the workflows need to express.
The short version
| Zapier | Make | n8n | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Per task | Per operation | Self-host, or cloud |
| Integration count | Largest | Large | Smaller, plus generic HTTP |
| Complex logic | Limited | Strong | Strong, plus code steps |
| Self-hosting | No | No | Yes |
| Version control | No | No | Yes, when self-hosted |
| Best for | Simple, broad, fast | Complex logic, hosted | Volume, data control, engineering teams |
When each is the right answer
Zapier: you want something working today, the integrations you need are on the list, and volume is modest. The premium is real and often worth it.
Make: your workflows need branching, iteration and data manipulation that Zapier cannot express, and you still do not want to run infrastructure.
n8n: task volume makes usage pricing uncomfortable, data cannot leave your infrastructure, or you want workflows in version control alongside the rest of your systems.
The cost crossover
All three are cheap at low volume. Usage pricing becomes the dominant cost somewhere in the tens of thousands of operations per month, and that is the point at which self-hosting starts to pay.
Factor in the real cost of self-hosting: infrastructure, updates and someone responsible when a workflow fails at 3am. That is not free, and pretending otherwise is how teams end up migrating twice.
Common questions
The software is open source and self-hostable at no license cost. Running it is not free. You carry infrastructure, updates and reliability. For high volume that total is usually well below usage-based pricing; for low volume it usually is not.
Yes, though migration is normally a rebuild rather than a translation. Workflows that grew organically in one platform tend to carry accumulated workarounds that are cheaper to redesign than to port.
All three are reliable when the workflows are designed for production: error handling, safe retries and visible failures. Most reliability problems we are called in for are workflow design issues rather than platform issues.
Read next
Start with the problem, not the software
Tell us what the process looks like today and where it breaks. You will get an honest read on whether it is worth building, what it would take, and roughly what it would cost, in writing, before anyone signs anything.
- Emailinfo@ilgoldberg.com
- Supportsupport@ilgoldberg.com
- Phone+1 (302) 307-3958
- Overlap8am to 12pm ET