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.
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.
At a glance
| Criterion |  Make |  n8n |
|---|---|---|
| Used mainly for | Visual automation, AI steps in flows | Client workflow automation, AI steps in flows |
| Entry price | $10.59/mo · Core | €24.00/mo · Starter |
| Free plan | ✓Yes | ✓Yes |
| Free trial | ✕No | ✓Yes |
| Works on | Web | Web, Self-hosted, Docker |
| Documented integrations | 1500+ integrations | 400+ integrations, HTTP / webhook, Self-hosted databases |
| Setup | Moderate: 1 hr | Moderate: 1-2 hr |
| Main limitation | Steeper learning curve | Self-hosting means you own the maintenance and uptime |
| Our evidence level | Vendor documented | Vendor documented |
| Try it | Try Make ↗ | Try n8n ↗ |
Every cell comes from the tool's record, built from its official documentation and pricing page. The integrations listed are the ones the vendor documents, not tested by us.
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
| Tool | Verified price | Billing condition | Free | Checked | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Make | $10.59/mo · Core | $10.59/mo billed monthly for 10,000 credits; $9/mo billed annually (save 15% or more) | Yes | 25.10.2026 | Visit ↗ |
| n8n | €24.00/mo · Starter | €24/month billed monthly; €20/month billed annually. The self-hosted community edition stays free | Yes | 25.10.2026 | Visit ↗ |
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.
Recently at these tools
Make: Make AI Agents get fallback connections and prompt caching. Source ↗
Make: Event subscriptions send signed, real-time platform notifications, with delivery logs. Source ↗
n8n: n8n 2.45: the monday.com node V2 reaches full parity with V1 (39 operations) and becomes the default. Source ↗
n8n: n8n 2.44: Google Vertex AI credentials and a rebuilt command bar (Cmd+K). Source ↗
Read on each vendor's official changelog, not tested by us.