Make vs n8n(2026)

Make vs n8n: which one should you actually pick?

Make and n8n are both visual-canvas automation tools — a real 2D graph you can branch, loop, and merge on. That alone sets them apart from Zapier's linear builder. The real split between them is who runs the infrastructure and how much code you want in your workflow.

Make is fully managed SaaS: polished UI, 2,000+ apps, EU residency on every paid plan, and the lowest per-operation pricing in the hosted-automation space. n8n is fair-code and self-hostable: fewer native integrations, but a full JavaScript code node, custom npm modules, and the option to run it yourself for effectively free.

The short version: Pick Make if you want hosted, polished, and cheap — and your team doesn't want to write code. Pick n8n if you want to self-host, write JavaScript inside workflows, or build AI agents with the deepest MCP integration on the market.

When Make is the right pick

• Your team is non-technical and values a polished, drag-and-drop experience
• You want managed SaaS — zero infrastructure to babysit
• You need EU data residency baked in (Make offers it on every paid plan)
• Your app stack is wide. Make's ~2,000 native integrations beat n8n's ~400
• You want the lowest hosted-automation pricing — Make Core starts at $10.59/mo annual

When n8n is the right pick

• You want to self-host. n8n's Docker image is free forever with no feature gate — the #1 reason teams pick it
• You want to write code inside nodes. n8n's Code node runs full JavaScript (Python via an external runner) against first-class workflow data
• You're building AI agents. n8n has the most complete MCP story around — both an MCP Server Trigger and an MCP Client Tool, both GA in 2026
• You want to ship custom modules. n8n lets you build and install custom nodes as npm packages
• You want an open codebase. n8n is fair-code under the Sustainable Use License — the source is public, commercial resale is restricted

Pricing — cheapest hosted vs. free-if-you-self-host

Make is the cheapest hosted automation tool. The Core plan lands around $10.59/mo on annual billing and scales predictably with operations. At 10K ops/mo, you're looking at roughly $11 — well under n8n Cloud's equivalent.

n8n Cloud starts at $20/mo for 2.5K executions. The numbers get close at low volume but Make edges out on pure hosted cost.

Here's the twist: n8n is free forever if you self-host. One Docker container on a cheap VPS can process millions of runs. For teams with any DevOps capability, that erases Make's pricing advantage — the only cost is the ops time to keep the container alive and patched.

Logic and workflow complexity

This is one of the few comparisons where both tools are strong. Both have:

• Routers (Make) / branches (n8n) that can merge results back
• Iterators and aggregators for loops + batching
• Parallel execution
• Error handlers and retry logic

Make's canvas is more polished visually, with pre-built modules that often "just work" out of the box. n8n's canvas is functional but a bit rougher around the edges — more levers, less hand-holding.

Code and customization

This is where n8n pulls away. Make has Functions (small inline transformations) but no general-purpose code node. If you need to do anything beyond light data reshaping, you're stitching together modules.

n8n gives you a full JavaScript Code node with the entire workflow data as a first-class object. You can also write and publish custom nodes as npm packages — huge if you're integrating a proprietary internal API or a tool n8n doesn't natively support.

AI and MCP

Both platforms are GA on MCP, but the depth is different.

• Make: Custom MCP server exposing workflows as tools, plus AI-native scenarios and bring-your-own-LLM support. Solid, production-ready.
• n8n: Native AI Agent node, LangChain-style chain building inside the canvas, both an MCP Server Trigger (expose workflows) and MCP Client Tool (consume external MCP servers). The most complete MCP story in automation today.

If your primary use case is AI-first workflows or agent orchestration, n8n's ecosystem is deeper. Make is a solid choice for teams adding AI features to mostly-traditional automations.

Compliance and data residency

• EU data residency: Both win here. Make offers EU hosting on every paid plan. n8n Cloud offers EU hosting and self-host lets you put data anywhere.
• HIPAA: Neither platform offers a BAA out of the box. Self-hosted n8n on your own HIPAA infrastructure is a valid workaround; Make does not support HIPAA use cases.
• SOC 2: Both are SOC 2 Type II compliant.
• SSO: Both gate SSO behind Enterprise plans.

Migration between them

Make ↔ n8n migrations are the easiest in the automation space because both tools share the visual-graph mental model. Scenarios become workflows, modules become nodes, routers become branches — the logic maps almost 1:1. The biggest gotcha is Make's Functions (inline transformations) vs. n8n's Code node — you'll often end up rewriting those as proper JavaScript.

Teams usually move Make → n8n when cost or self-host becomes important, or n8n → Make when they want to ditch the self-host overhead and get something polished.

The honest call

Make is the right answer if you want the cheapest hosted automation, a polished visual canvas, the widest native app catalog of the two, and EU residency without the Enterprise tier.

n8n is the right answer if you want to self-host, write real code inside workflows, build AI agents, or ship custom integrations as npm packages. It's the pick for developer-heavy teams.

Both are production-ready, both have GA MCP servers, and both share the same mental model on canvas. For broader platform comparisons, browse Integration Atlas, or check out the automation guides for specific workflows built in each.