Practical decision guide

Make vs n8n for small agencies

Make and n8n compared on the question that actually decides it: whether anyone on your team will run a server. Verified pricing, the self-hosting trade-off and who should pick neither.

Both are visual automation builders priced on volume rather than per step, which already puts them in a different bracket from the per-task tools. The choice between them is not really about features.

It is about one question: is there somebody on your team who will keep a server patched and running? Answer that honestly and the rest follows.

The short answer

Choose Make if you want automation without infrastructure — it is hosted, and the entry tier is the cheapest verified price in our automation category. Choose n8n if someone will own the self-hosted deployment, in which case the Community Edition is free forever and the data never leaves your own machine.

The two tools compared

Make

Powerful and flexible

USD 9/mo · Core

versus

n8n

Free forever if you self-host

EUR 20/mo · Starter

The self-hosting question decides it

n8n's Community Edition is free to self-host with no execution cap you have not imposed yourself. That is a genuinely different offer from anything else in this category — but it means you own the uptime, the backups, the updates and whatever breaks at an inconvenient moment. For an agency with technical capacity that is a real saving; for one without, it is an unpaid second job.

Hosted pricing: both charge by execution, not by step

Make and n8n both price on workflow runs rather than on how many actions each run contains, which is the model that stops complex workflows becoming disproportionately expensive. Compare them on your expected monthly execution volume, not on the headline entry price — that number tells you very little about the bill you will actually receive.

Where n8n's seat model wins

n8n includes unlimited users and unlimited workflows on every paid plan. For a small agency where three or four people all need to touch automations, that removes the per-seat multiplier that makes other tools expensive at exactly the point they become useful.

Where Make wins

Make is hosted, so there is nothing to maintain, and its visual builder is more forgiving for someone learning the concepts. If the person building automations is the same person running client delivery, that lower operational overhead matters more than the licence saving.

The honest answer for most readers

If you are asking this question at all, you probably want Make. n8n rewards teams that already run infrastructure and want control over where client data sits — a real requirement for some consultancies, and irrelevant for most. Neither is worth adopting until a workflow repeats often enough to justify building it.

Pricing side by side

ToolStarting priceBilling conditionFree access
MakeUSD 9/mo · Core$9/mo for 10,000 credits; annual billing saves 15% or moreYes
n8nEUR 20/mo · Starter20 EUR/mo billed annually (17% below monthly); the self-hosted community edition is freeYes

Verified from official vendor pricing pages on 2026-08-06. Currencies are shown as each vendor quoted them.

Frequently asked questions

Is n8n really free?

The self-hosted Community Edition is, permanently. The hosted plans are not, and start above Make's entry tier. 'Free' here means free of licence cost, not free of effort — you are trading money for maintenance time.

Which is better for client data?

Self-hosted n8n, if data residency is a contractual requirement, because nothing passes through a vendor's servers. If it is not a requirement, this advantage costs more than it returns.

Can I move workflows between them?

Not directly. Both use visual builders with incompatible formats, so switching means rebuilding. Prototype on the free tiers of both before committing.

What about Zapier?

Zapier is easier still and has the largest integration catalogue, but prices per task and gets expensive at volume. See our Make vs Zapier comparison for that side of the decision.

This page has no named author yet. Until a person is credited, it is published under the editorial policy described on our methodology page. We would rather say so than attach a name that does not correspond to anyone.

Related reading

Evidence boundary. These recommendations reflect documented research and editorial judgment as of 2026-08-06. Pricing and free tiers change. No hands-on test is implied unless explicitly stated.
Editorial note: this site currently contains no affiliate links. We will update this disclosure if that changes.