n8n vs Make (Make.com): An Honest Comparison for 2026

Make suits operations teams wanting a visual, cloud-only builder and the lowest bill on short flows; n8n suits teams needing self-hosting, code or long flows billed per run; when the case ends in a decision and is not ready yet, add Floowed alongside either.

Both products are genuinely good, and they differ on three things more than any feature table suggests: where they run, what the meter counts, and who can maintain the result. Our n8n vs Zapier comparison goes deeper on n8n itself, so this page sticks to where Make and n8n differ, with prices at the time of writing, and ends with the question neither answers, the part Floowed was built for.

n8n vs Make: what each one is built for

Make is a hosted, visual automation platform. You build scenarios from modules on a canvas, with routers and filters for branching, iterators and aggregators for lists, and more than 3,000 apps. It runs only in Make's cloud and bills in credits, roughly one per module action. Its bet: the person who owns the process builds the automation.

n8n is a source-available workflow tool you run yourself or rent as n8n Cloud. Code sits one click away in JavaScript or Python, its AI nodes are built on LangChain, and its meter counts a whole execution however many steps it has. Its bet: the builder thinks like an engineer. Most of what follows comes from those two bets.

n8n vs Make at a glance

Hosting: self-hosted n8n vs cloud-only Make.com

n8n runs wherever you put it: Docker Compose, a one-line install script, Kubernetes, any major cloud, or an air-gapped private network. The free Community edition carries almost the complete feature set; paid features arrive as a licence key that checks in with n8n's licence server daily. If the data itself cannot leave your network, n8n answers the question and Make does not.

Make is cloud only by design, on AWS in the EU or North America on every plan. For systems behind a firewall, Enterprise customers install an on-prem agent so scenarios can reach local applications and databases without firewall changes. The platform stays Make's to run.

A twist for US buyers: n8n's pricing page says hosted plans store data in the EU, in Frankfurt, while Make offers North American hosting out of the box. On n8n's published plans, US-resident data means self-hosting in your own region, which trades subscription for engineering time.

Then the licence. n8n's Sustainable Use License allows internal business use, building workflows for clients as a consultant, and writing nodes for your own product. It does not allow white-labelling n8n and selling it, hosting it and charging for access, or powering your own app's feature with your end users' credentials, without a separate commercial agreement. Agencies and software companies should read it first. Make never raises the question: you are buying a service.

Pricing: n8n executions vs Make credits as volume grows

At the time of writing, n8n Cloud's Starter is $20 a month billed annually for 2,500 executions and five concurrent runs. Pro is $50 a month for 10,000, or $120 for 50,000. Business, which is self-hosted, is $667 a month billed annually ($800 month to month) for 40,000, and Enterprise is quoted. Every plan includes unlimited users, workflows and integrations, and an execution is one full run "regardless of complexity".

Make bills in credits, the unit that replaced operations. Free gives 1,000 a month and two active scenarios. Core, Pro and Teams start at $12, $21 and $38 a month billed annually for 10,000 credits ($16, $28 and $51 monthly) and scale up a credit slider; Enterprise is quoted. Most module actions cost one credit, including transforming and iterating. Routers and error handlers are free; AI features and the Make Code app cost more.

So a Make bill is runs times steps times items looped over, and an n8n bill is runs. A twelve-step flow on the cheapest plan that fits, billed annually:

Flip the shape and Make wins: a three-step flow run 3,000 times a month uses 9,000 credits and fits Core at $12, while on n8n it outgrows Starter and needs Pro at $50.

Three traps before you sign. In Make, iteration multiplies: loop over 30 invoice lines and every module after the iterator spends 30 credits, where n8n still counts one execution. In n8n, a flow that fires per row rather than per batch burns the allowance, and Starter's five concurrent runs queue early. In Make, credits expire each term, and scenarios stop when they run out unless automatic top-ups or Enterprise overage protection are on.

Skill required: code nodes vs visual scenarios

Make is the most approachable serious builder in the category. Mapping, visual routers, filters and iterators let people who do not write code build real multi-branch scenarios, and Maia by Make builds them from a conversation. Code runs in the Make Code app on paid plans, billed by the second, so in Make code is an exception rather than a habit.

n8n expects more and gives more room. You will read JSON and write expressions, the Code node is everyday toolkit, and self-hosting adds custom nodes and bash scripts. Its MCP server lets Claude, ChatGPT or an IDE build and fix workflows against a live instance. The test for both: who changes this flow in a year, after its builder has moved on? Someone in operations points to Make, an engineer to n8n.

Building AI agents in n8n and Make

n8n gives you the parts. Its AI Agent node connects a chat model and tools and lets the agent choose which to call. Underneath, n8n implements LangChain's JavaScript framework as cluster nodes: chat models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google or a local Ollama instance, memory, vector stores such as Pinecone or PGVector, and other workflows as tools. MCP Client and MCP Server Trigger nodes connect agents in both directions, human review holds a risky tool call until someone approves it, and evaluations test an agent on real data. Self-hosted with a local model, the whole agent runs on hardware you own.

Make gives you the view. The new generation of Make AI Agents, announced in February 2026, lives on the scenario canvas, where a reasoning panel shows how the agent thinks and which tools it calls. Agents take and produce files, run on Make's AI Provider or your own model key, can be held for manual approval, and ready-made ones come from a Library of Agents, while Make MCP Server exposes scenarios to any MCP client. The pricing page still labels AI Agents beta.

Pick n8n to own the agent's architecture, Make for an agent a business owner can follow. In both, the agent reasons inside a run, and the rules that decide the outcome live wherever the builder put them.

Error handling, retries and long waits

Make handles errors visually, per module: attach a Retry, Resume, Skip, Commit or Rollback route to the module that might fail, at no credit cost. With incomplete executions switched on (they are off by default), failed runs are stored for a retry or a fix, and rate-limit, connection and timeout errors retry automatically. n8n handles errors more centrally: automatic retries on every plan, an error workflow that starts with the Error Trigger and runs whenever an assigned workflow fails, and failed executions that load back into the editor.

The bigger difference is waiting. n8n's Wait node offloads a paused execution to the database and resumes it after an interval, at a set time, on a call to a resume URL unique to that execution, or on a form submission, so one workflow can wait days. A single Make run is capped at 40 minutes on paid plans, so anything that waits on a person is split: one scenario asks, a second started by a webhook picks up the answer, and the state between them lives in a data store you design.

n8n is better at waiting. Neither models what it waits for.

Governance and team controls

n8n governs like software: projects with roles; SSO, environments and Git version control from Business; external secret stores, log streaming and audit events on Enterprise; SOC 2 audited. Make governs like a SaaS workspace: teams and roles on Teams; SSO, audit logs and domain claim on Enterprise; SOC 2 Type II; and Make Grid, a live map of every agent, app and scenario. Both keep a good record of what ran; neither records why a business outcome came out as it did.

Where Zapier fits: n8n vs Make vs Zapier

Zapier has the fastest start and the widest catalogue, more than 9,000 apps, with less depth in branching and code. Make is the most capable cloud-only tool, and n8n the most capable overall if you run it like software. n8n vs Zapier covers that pairing and n8n alternatives the wider field.

Make vs n8n: how the choice resolves by team

• Operations, RevOps or marketing, SaaS stack, no engineers: Make.
• Engineering or platform team, internal systems, data that cannot leave the network: n8n, self-hosted.
• US company that wants managed hosting with data in North America: Make, or n8n self-hosted in your own region.
• Agency or software company putting automation in front of clients: read n8n's licence first; Make, or an n8n commercial agreement.
• AI builders who want model choice, local models, retrieval and evals: n8n. Business owners who want to follow an agent's reasoning: Make.
• Long or list-heavy flows at volume: n8n. Short flows at modest volume: Make.

The case neither n8n nor Make.com is built to hold

Build invoice approval in either tool and the happy path takes an afternoon: the invoice matches its purchase order, sits under the approval limit and posts to the ledger.

Now the Tuesday version. The invoice has no PO number. Once someone finds the PO, the invoice is 4% over it. The budget owner who must approve the variance is travelling. And the bank details do not match the vendor's on file, which should hold payment until someone confirms through another channel. Four open questions, owed by different people and systems, answered at different speeds, in any order. In accounts payable that is not an edge case. It is the job.

Both tools can pause for a human now, through n8n's Wait node and human review and Make's manual approvals. What they pause is a run. This invoice needs a case: which questions are still open, who owes each one and since when, what counts as an answer, what happens when a corrected invoice arrives halfway through, and how it all resumes at the right gate. In n8n that becomes Wait nodes, resume URLs and a table on the side; in Make, several scenarios and a data store. Either way you are building a case system inside a tool that models runs.

Then the rules. The variance tolerance, the approval limits and the bank-detail hold live in If, Switch and Code nodes in n8n, and in route filters and mapping formulas in Make. A rule change is an edit to a flow, tested however its builder chooses, rather than a new policy version replayed against last quarter's invoices and their real outcomes before it runs. When the auditor asks why invoice 4471 was paid, the answer is an execution log, which Make keeps for 30 days on most paid plans. Documents are a third gap: both read clean PDFs well, and scanned or photographed ones are covered in where automation tools hit their document limit. None of this is a flaw in either product. It is a different shape of work, the one invoice approval software buyers meet first.

Where Floowed fits alongside n8n or Make

Floowed is the decision platform, and it works alongside n8n or Make rather than in place of either. Underneath is an AI-native, multi-agent runtime that works each case from intake to outcome in five phases (gather, interpret, chase, decide, act), the middle three repeating until the case is decision ready. It is model-agnostic, routing each task between open-weight and frontier models on cost, latency and data residency.

Evidence arrives through three lanes as equals: your own systems, over the API, MCP and 400+ integrations across every industry we serve; external sources such as registries and KYC providers; and documents, read in whatever state they arrive and cross-checked against everything else in the case. When a piece is missing, the case asks whoever owes it, a named person, system or agent, holds open as a long-running asynchronous case, and resumes on the answer. The rules run on a deterministic policy engine, the Decision Engine, as a versioned policy your operations team owns, and a change can be back-tested against past cases and their real outcomes before it runs. You set the thresholds: settle it automatically, route it for review, or raise it as an exception. What comes back is a decision with the evidence behind every check.

The handover is plain. In n8n, an HTTP Request node opens the case, and a Webhook node catches the decision or a Wait node holds the execution and gives Floowed its resume URL. In Make, one scenario opens the case and a second, started by a custom webhook, catches the decision. The n8n and Make integration pages have the detail, and your own agents can open a case over MCP. Your systems of record stay; Floowed sits above them as the system of action, so they stop being where the work happens.

You start from the library, not a blank canvas: invoice approval, supplier onboarding, vendor risk review, customer onboarding, employee offboarding, claims intake, contractor clearance, refunds and goodwill. We charge credits for the work done on a case, not for seats or models, so every model improvement makes that work cheaper. Start free with $80 of credits, no card and no sales call; plans run from $80 to $2,000 a month at one rate, with every feature and integration included. See pricing, and keeping a human in the loop for the review side.

Frequently asked questions

Is n8n better than Make?

Neither is better in general. n8n is stronger when you need to self-host, write code, reach internal systems or run long, list-heavy flows at volume, because it bills per execution rather than per step. Make is stronger when the builders sit in operations, the stack is SaaS, and you want a visual builder with managed hosting in the EU or North America. Two questions usually settle it: where must the data live, and who maintains the flow in a year.

Is n8n cheaper than Make?

It depends on the shape of the flow. Make bills credits, roughly one per module action, so cost scales with runs, steps and the items you loop over; at the time of writing it starts at $12 a month billed annually for 10,000 credits. n8n Cloud bills per execution however many steps it has, from $20 a month billed annually for 2,500 executions. Short flows at modest volume usually cost less on Make, long or list-heavy flows at volume less on n8n.

Can Make.com be self-hosted?

No. Make runs in its own cloud, on AWS in the EU or North America, on every plan. Enterprise customers can install an on-prem agent inside their network so scenarios reach local applications and databases without opening the firewall, but the platform stays hosted by Make. If the automation engine itself must run on your infrastructure, including an air-gapped network, that is n8n's territory, through its free Community edition or a paid licence key.

Can I use n8n for client work or inside my own product?

Usually for client work, and it depends for products. n8n's Sustainable Use License allows internal business use, building workflows for clients as a consultant, and writing nodes for your own product. Without a separate commercial agreement, it does not allow white-labelling n8n and selling it, hosting it and charging for access, or powering an app feature with your end users' own credentials. Make never raises the question, because you are buying a hosted service rather than running licensed software.

Which is better for building AI agents, n8n or Make?

n8n suits teams that want to own the agent's architecture: its AI Agent node is built on LangChain, takes your choice of chat model, including local ones through Ollama, and adds memory, vector stores, MCP tools, human review before risky tool calls, and evaluations. Make suits teams that want agents a business owner can follow, on the scenario canvas with a reasoning panel showing each decision and tool call. In both, the agent reasons inside a run rather than deciding on a versioned policy.

n8n vs Make vs Zapier: which should I use?

Zapier for the fastest start and the widest catalogue, more than 9,000 apps, with less depth in branching and code. Make for richer data handling and visual routing in a cloud product. n8n for self-hosting, code and metering that does not punish long flows. Many teams sensibly run two of the three; our n8n vs Zapier comparison covers that pairing.

Can n8n or Make call Floowed, and how does the decision come back?

Yes, over the API in both directions, and neither needs replacing. n8n opens a case with an HTTP Request node and catches the decision with a Webhook node, or parks in a Wait node and gives Floowed its resume URL. Make opens it from one scenario and catches the decision in a second, started by a custom webhook. In between, Floowed's AI-native, multi-agent runtime works it as a long-running asynchronous case. A deterministic policy engine then decides on your versioned rules. Your own agents can open cases over MCP.

Run one real case through it

Pick the flow your n8n or Make build handles well until something is missing, the invoice without a PO, and run that case. Start free with $80 of credits, no card and no sales call, choose a template, and point it at your own systems. The decisions page shows a flow once it runs.

Or book a demo and name the decision. We will run a case through the loop against your own process, including the part where the answer does not come back.