Choose Make when
You want the most refined visual scenario builder, strong built-in error handlers, and a managed service with no infrastructure. Its interface handles complex branching elegantly.
Compare n8n hosting →Comparison · Workflow automation
n8n vs Make operations versus executions.
Make, formerly Integromat, bills by operation — roughly one per module run — and is cloud-only. n8n bills per workflow execution and can be self-hosted. Both have capable visual builders, so the decision usually comes down to billing at volume and whether you want to own the runtime.
- Per operation
- How Make bills
- Per execution
- How n8n bills
- Self-host
- n8n only
- Visual
- Both builders
Both are strong visual builders with different economics.
Make is more polished for branching visual scenarios. n8n is stronger when you want code, self-hosting, or predictable cost on heavy workflows.
Choose n8n when
You want self-hosting, per-execution billing, or real code inside a workflow. Technical teams generally prefer n8n once workflows grow past a few modules.
View n8n hosting →Cost at volume
Make counts each module execution as an operation, so a long scenario consumes many operations per run. n8n counts one execution regardless of node count.
See pricing →Code steps
n8n runs JavaScript and Python inside the workflow. Make's scripting is more limited, which pushes complex logic into extra modules.
View n8n hosting →AI and agents
n8n includes LangChain nodes, vector stores, and agent patterns, and can call self-hosted models. Make offers AI modules on its managed platform.
View AI agent hosting →Data control
Make processes on its cloud. Self-hosted n8n runs where you put it, which matters when a scenario handles regulated data.
View hosting locations →What actually changes between the two.
Both tools do the job. These are the dimensions that decide it.
Billing unit01
Make charges per operation, roughly one per module run. n8n charges per workflow execution. A 15-module scenario is ~15 Make operations and 1 n8n execution.
Visual polish02
Make is generally considered the more refined canvas, especially for complex branching and nested routers.
Self-hosting03
Only n8n can be self-hosted. Make is cloud-only, so a data-residency requirement rules it out.
Code04
n8n runs JavaScript and Python nodes natively. Make's scripting options are narrower.
Error handling05
Make ships mature built-in error handlers and rollback behaviour. n8n has error workflows but expects you to design the retry path.
Learning curve06
Make is friendlier to non-developers. n8n rewards technical users with more control.
Products, plans, and regional guidance.
n8n hostingManaged n8n with one-click deploy.→n8n vs ZapierThe other comparison worth running.→n8n cloud vs self-hostedWhich n8n deployment model fits.→AI agent hostingAll eight supported agent applications.→Platform comparisonDarwa against Railway, Render, Fly.io, and Heroku.→PricingPlans, terms, and renewal pricing.→
Answers before you deploy.
Is n8n cheaper than Make?+
For long scenarios, generally yes. Make counts roughly one operation per module run, so a 15-module scenario consumes about 15 operations each time it fires, while n8n counts a single execution. For short scenarios the difference is minor.
Can Make be self-hosted?+
No. Make runs only on its own cloud. Self-hosting is available with n8n, either on your own servers or on managed n8n hosting.
Which has the better visual builder?+
Make is usually rated higher on visual polish, particularly for complex branching and nested routers. n8n's canvas is capable and more code-friendly but less refined for purely visual work.
Which is better for a technical team?+
n8n, in most cases. Native JavaScript and Python nodes, self-hosting, and per-execution billing all suit engineers. Make suits operations and marketing teams who want managed simplicity.
Is Make the same as Integromat?+
Yes. Integromat was rebranded as Make. Older documentation and tutorials referring to Integromat describe the same product.
Can I move scenarios from Make to n8n?+
Not automatically. Scenarios are rebuilt on the n8n canvas. The trigger-and-action model transfers conceptually, and credentials must be re-entered since exports never include secrets.