n8n vs Make 2026: Open-Source Self-Hosted vs Hosted Visual Automation

n8n and Make (formerly Integromat) are both positioned as the "more technical alternative to Zapier" — but they differ enough in approach that picking between them isn't obvious. n8n's defining feature is self-hosting via its open-source core. Make's defining feature is the most polished visual scenario editor in the automation category. Both serve technical users; the right pick depends on whether self-hosting matters more than UI polish.

This comparison assumes you've already decided against Zapier for cost or technical reasons. If you're choosing between n8n, Make, and Zapier together, start with the n8n vs Zapier comparison first.

The core difference

n8n is open-source at the core. You can run it on your own server, in your own cloud, in your own Kubernetes cluster. Data stays in your infrastructure. The trade-off is operational overhead — you handle server administration, updates, backups.

Make is hosted-only. Their cloud handles everything; you don't think about infrastructure. The trade-off is data sovereignty — your workflow data and the data flowing through it live in Make's cloud.

This single difference drives most of the right answer. If self-hosting matters for your use case (privacy, compliance, cost at scale), n8n wins by default. If it doesn't matter, Make's UI polish might tip the choice.

Where Make is genuinely better

The visual scenario editor in Make is the best in the automation category. Drag nodes onto a canvas, connect them visually, see data flow in real-time when running. The "scenarios" view shows workflow execution in a way that makes complex workflows readable.

Error handling and filtering inside scenarios is more polished than n8n's. Make's "Iterator" and "Aggregator" modules handle array operations cleanly without requiring Code nodes. Conditional branching is visual rather than node-based.

Integration count is competitive. Make has 1,800+ apps available, fewer than Zapier's 7,000+ but ahead of n8n's ~600. The integration depth on specific apps is sometimes deeper than n8n equivalents.

Where Make falls short: pricing at scale gets expensive fast, no self-hosting option exists, no native code support for complex transformations (though Make has more visual transformation modules than Zapier), and you don't have access to the underlying source code.

Where n8n is genuinely better

Self-hosting is the headline advantage. Run n8n on your infrastructure, keep data sovereign, scale to high workflow volumes without per-execution pricing. For regulated industries (healthcare, financial services, legal), this isn't optional — it's required.

Code support inside workflows. n8n's Code node accepts JavaScript and Python for complex logic that visual nodes don't handle. Useful for data transformations, API edge cases, conditional logic that branches in non-trivial ways.

AI features are more mature. n8n positioned earlier and more aggressively around AI workflows. Native AI agent nodes, vector store integrations, LLM connectors. Make has AI features but they're less central to the product's positioning.

Source code visibility. The open-source license means you can audit the code, fix bugs yourself, and contribute back. For organizations that won't run software they can't audit, this matters.

Where n8n falls short: visual UX is more developer-styled and less polished than Make's. Cloud hosting (if you don't want self-hosting) is roughly comparable in price to Make but with fewer integrations. App integration count trails Make.

Pricing comparison 2026

n8n self-hosted: Free core product. You pay hosting costs (~$10-50/mo on standard cloud providers).

n8n Cloud: Starter $24/mo (2.5K executions), Pro $60/mo (10K executions), Business $150/mo (40K executions).

Make: Free tier (1K operations/mo, 2 active scenarios). Core $9/mo (10K operations). Pro $16/mo (10K operations + advanced features). Teams $29/mo (10K operations + team features). Enterprise custom.

Make's pricing units are "operations" — each node action counts as one operation. A workflow with 10 nodes that runs once consumes 10 operations. This adds up faster than n8n's execution-based pricing.

At low volume, Make's free tier or Core is cheaper than n8n Cloud. At medium volume, n8n self-hosted (free product + cheap hosting) beats Make Pro/Teams pricing. At high volume, n8n self-hosted is dramatically cheaper than Make Teams or Enterprise.

Head-to-head scenarios

"I want to automate workflows for my own small business." Make Core at $9/mo wins for sub-10K operations/mo if visual polish matters. n8n Cloud Starter at $24/mo is comparable but with execution-based pricing that may suit your workflow patterns better.

"I run an agency with 50 client automations." n8n self-hosted wins on cost. Make Teams pricing at agency scale becomes painful; n8n self-hosted is fixed-cost beyond hosting.

"I work at a healthcare startup needing HIPAA." n8n self-hosted wins decisively. Make's hosted-only model doesn't fit HIPAA-required data handling cleanly without Enterprise contracts.

"I want the cleanest visual UI for non-technical stakeholders to understand workflows." Make wins. The scenario view is genuinely more readable for explaining workflows to business stakeholders.

"I'm building AI agent workflows for our product." n8n wins. Built-in AI features are more mature; code support enables complex agent logic.

"I'm migrating from Zapier and want the closest equivalent UX." Make wins. The visual paradigm is more similar to Zapier than n8n's developer-styled interface.

"I need data to stay in EU servers for GDPR comfort." Both can work. n8n self-hosted on EU infrastructure is the cleanest answer. Make has EU data residency options on Enterprise.

When both can make sense

Larger technical teams sometimes run both — n8n for self-hosted critical workflows (data pipelines, AI workflows, regulated work) and Make for non-regulated workflows where the UI polish matters. The dual-tool pattern requires real operational discipline; most teams converge on one.

Our verdict

n8n edges Make for technical teams and self-hosting use cases, which is most of the audience choosing between these tools. The self-hosting capability, code support, and AI-feature depth deliver value that Make can't match for technical workflows at scale.

Make wins specifically when visual UI polish matters more than self-hosting — small-to-medium business automation, workflows that need to be readable by non-technical stakeholders, or teams that want the cleanest visual paradigm without n8n's developer-styled interface.

The deciding question is self-hosting. If you need it (or might need it later), n8n is the answer. If you genuinely don't need it, evaluate UX preference between the two.

Affiliate disclosure: AIVario earns commission on Make (among others) when you sign up through our links. n8n's self-hosted product doesn't have affiliate revenue. Our verdict is honestly that n8n wins for most technical use cases, even though Make is the affiliate-revenue option.

Related comparisons and tools

• n8n vs Zapier — n8n compared to the mainstream automation standard
• Zapier vs Make — Mainstream automation comparison if you're not committed to technical tools
• n8n — Full tool review including self-hosting deployment
• Make — Full tool review and visual editor details
• Zapier — Mainstream alternative for non-technical users