Make vs n8n 2026: which automation tool is better?
Make and n8n are both powerful automation platforms, but they suit different people. If you want a managed visual platform with a permanent free tier, I would start with Make. If you are technically confident and want self-hosting and deeper control, n8n deserves serious consideration.
Mike Says is currently a Make affiliate. If you sign up to Make through a labelled affiliate link and later make a qualifying purchase, I may earn commission at no extra cost to you. I am not treating that as a reason to hide where n8n is stronger.
Fact-checked: 9 September 2026 against current official Make and n8n pricing/product information. Prices and features can change, so check the provider before paying.
Quick verdict
Make is the option I would put in front of most beginners, creators and small businesses. n8n becomes especially compelling for developers and technical teams that want to run the software themselves or build more code-heavy workflows.
Make vs n8n at a glance
| Category | Make | n8n | My pick |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent free option | Free cloud plan: 1,000 credits/month | Free self-hosted Community Edition | Depends on whether you want to self-host |
| Entry hosted paid plan | Core: $12/month for 10k credits on monthly billing | Starter: €20/month billed annually for 2.5k executions | Different billing models |
| Billing unit | Credits; most module actions count as a credit | Cloud plans priced by workflow executions, regardless of workflow complexity | Depends on workflow |
| Integrations | 3,000+ apps | All integrations included on cloud plans; custom/community options also available | Make for listed breadth |
| Self-hosting | Not offered as the standard product | Yes, Community Edition available | n8n |
| Best fit | Visual no-code automation without managing infrastructure | Technical users wanting control, code and self-hosting | Depends on you |
Make credits and n8n executions are not equivalent units. Do not compare the headline allowances as though one credit equals one execution.
1. Pricing and free options
Make: the Free plan currently costs $0 with no time limit and includes up to 1,000 credits per month. At 10,000 credits per month, Core is currently $12/month on monthly billing, Pro $21 and Teams $38. Make says annual billing saves 15% or more.
n8n: its hosted Starter plan is currently €20/month when billed annually and includes 2,500 workflow executions with unlimited steps. n8n also offers a free self-hosted Community Edition. Its cloud trial lets you test Pro-level features before paying.
Verdict: Make is simpler if you want a permanent free hosted service. n8n's Community Edition is much more interesting if you are happy to provide and maintain your own hosting.
2. Credits vs workflow executions
This is one of the biggest differences. Make says each module action in a scenario generally counts as one credit. A workflow containing several actions can therefore consume several credits when it runs.
n8n prices its cloud plans around workflow executions. n8n describes an execution as a run of the entire workflow, regardless of how many steps are in it.
There is no universal cheaper winner. A simple workflow that runs frequently can have a very different cost profile from a long workflow with many steps. Estimate your real workflow before choosing purely on headline allowances.
3. Ease of use
Make is visual-first. You build scenarios on a canvas, connect modules and can see routes, filters and data flow. The Free plan includes its no-code visual workflow builder, routers and filters.
n8n also has a visual workflow editor, but its strengths extend further into technical territory. It is attractive when you are comfortable combining visual nodes with code, APIs and infrastructure decisions.
Winner for most beginners: Make. That does not mean Make is effortless — more advanced scenarios still have a learning curve.
4. Self-hosting and control
This is n8n's clearest advantage. A standard self-hosted Community Edition is available, giving technical users the option to run n8n on infrastructure they control.
That flexibility comes with responsibility: self-hosting means you are responsible for the server and the operational work around it. If you do not want that job, a managed platform is likely the better fit.
Winner: n8n.
5. Integrations and APIs
Make currently advertises 3,000+ apps and also provides an HTTP app for connecting to services with an API. That gives non-technical users a large catalogue of ready-made integrations while leaving a route to custom API connections.
n8n includes every integration on its cloud plans and has an ecosystem designed with technical extensibility in mind. The right question is not simply which platform has the larger number: check whether the exact apps, triggers and actions your workflow needs are supported.
Winner for ready-made catalogue breadth: Make. Winner for developer-style extensibility: n8n is particularly strong.
6. AI automation
Both products now go beyond traditional trigger-and-action automation. Make offers AI Agents inside its visual automation environment and connects them across its app ecosystem. Its MCP Server can expose Make scenarios as tools to compatible AI systems.
n8n is also heavily focused on AI workflows and agents, with the ability to combine AI with workflow logic and technical customisation. On self-hosted n8n, its pricing page says the AI Assistant can use your own key.
Verdict: no blanket winner. Make is appealing when you want AI inside a managed visual platform; n8n is compelling when technical flexibility and infrastructure control matter more.
Make pros and cons
Pros: permanent free cloud tier; visual no-code builder; 3,000+ apps; no server to manage; routers and filters available on Free; straightforward route from beginner workflows into more advanced scenarios.
Cons: credit consumption can increase as scenarios perform more actions; complex scenarios still take time to learn; not the choice for someone specifically seeking a self-hosted automation platform.
n8n pros and cons
Pros: free self-hosted Community Edition; cloud billing based on complete workflow executions rather than charging per step; strong technical flexibility; attractive for developers and teams that want control over their infrastructure.
Cons: self-hosting creates extra technical and maintenance work; the hosted service does not offer the same permanent $0 cloud plan as Make; its technical flexibility may be more than a beginner actually needs.
Which should you choose?
Choose Make if: you want to start free in the cloud, prefer a visual no-code approach, do not want to maintain a server, or want a large ready-made app catalogue.
Choose n8n if: self-hosting is important, you are comfortable with technical setup, you want more infrastructure control, or your workflows benefit from developer-oriented flexibility.
Want to try Make first?
Make's Free plan has no time limit, so you can build a real workflow before deciding whether you need a paid plan.
Ad · Try Make free →Affiliate link · I may earn commission from a qualifying purchase at no extra cost to you.
Final verdict
For the audience Mike Says is aimed at — people who want useful automation without becoming infrastructure engineers — I would start with Make. The permanent free cloud plan, visual builder and broad integration catalogue make it an accessible place to learn.
But n8n is not an inferior Make clone. If self-hosting, code-level flexibility and technical control are priorities, I would seriously consider n8n instead. That distinction is exactly why these two tools appeal to different users.
Still deciding? Read my Make.com review or compare Make vs Zapier.