Make vs n8n: visual automation compared
By the InTheory team · Updated November 2026
Short answer: Both suit people who outgrow simple trigger-action tools. Make is fully hosted, has a polished visual canvas and bills in credits per action, which works well for moderate volumes and teams without a server. n8n bills cloud plans per full execution and can be self-hosted, so it tends to win on long, high-volume workflows and data control, provided someone technical maintains it.
| Make | n8n | |
|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Credits; most module actions use 1, some AI features use more | Workflow executions, unlimited steps per run |
| Hosting | Cloud only | Cloud or self-hosted |
| Builder style | Visual scenario canvas with routers and iterators | Node canvas with code nodes and expressions |
| Learning curve | Moderate | Moderate to steep |
| Free routing and error handling | Router and error handler modules do not use credits | Steps inside an execution are not counted separately |
| Data control | Data passes through Make's cloud | Self-hosting keeps data on your infrastructure |
| Small company discounts | Start-up plan for firms under 20 employees, if eligible | Startup plan for firms under 20 employees, if eligible |
How credits and executions differ in practice
In Make, a scenario that reads an email, parses an attachment, searches the CRM and creates three records uses a credit for each action, every run. Make notes a single run can range from two credits to thousands. In n8n cloud, that same run is one execution. The more steps per run, the more n8n's model favors you.
For example, a document intake flow with 15 steps running 1,000 times a month is a very different bill on each platform. Model it with current pricing before deciding.
The cost of self-hosting
Self-hosting n8n removes per-execution cloud fees, but someone has to run updates, back up the database, watch for failures and secure the server. For a firm without technical staff, that work often costs more than the subscription saved. Make has no server option, which is a limitation and a relief.
Which one staff can maintain
Make's canvas is easier to read for an operations lead who thinks visually. n8n rewards people comfortable with data structures and occasional code. Pick the tool the likely maintainer can debug at 4 pm on a Friday.
Choose Make if
- You want a hosted visual builder with no servers
- Volumes are moderate and workflows have a handful of steps
- An operations person, not a developer, will maintain it
- You prefer fine-grained, per-action billing visibility
Choose n8n if
- Workflows have many steps or run at high volume
- You need self-hosting for data control
- You have a developer or technical partner
- You are building AI agent workflows that need code-level control
Common questions
Did Make change from operations to credits?
Yes. Make's pricing page states that credits are now the billing unit, with most actions using one credit and some AI features using more. Older articles that talk about operations describe the previous model.
Which has more integrations?
Both cover the common business apps. For anything missing, both can call APIs through HTTP modules or nodes. Check that the specific apps you rely on, such as your practice management or field service software, have maintained connectors.
Can I run both?
Yes, though it adds overhead. Some firms keep simple automations on one platform and move heavy, high-volume flows to another. Keep a list of every automation, its owner and platform so nothing is forgotten.