The honest way to put the difference: Make pushes complexity into the interface, and n8n pushes it into your head. Neither removes it. Which one you want depends on whether you would rather click through a configured system or write the logic yourself, and that is a preference about how you work rather than a question with a correct answer.
Most comparisons of these two settle on open source versus proprietary and stop there, which explains the licence and nothing about the daily experience. The differences that matter show up in how you handle a branch, what happens when a run fails at three in the morning, and who is responsible for the server.
Table of contents
- The integration count is a real difference, and not the one that decides it
- Branching, logic, and where each one gets awkward
- Self-hosting is the actual decision
- Pricing models that are not comparable
- Choosing, briefly
- What self-hosting n8n actually needs
- How this fits the rest of the stack
- FAQ
The integration count is a real difference, and not the one that decides it
Make has substantially more native connectors, roughly in the range of 1,500 to 2,000 against n8n’s 400 to 500. If your workflow touches a niche marketing tool or a regional accounting package, Make is more likely to have it ready.
But the gap matters less than the numbers suggest, because n8n has a generic HTTP request node that speaks to anything with a REST API, and most business software has one. A missing connector means reading API documentation and configuring a request rather than being blocked.
For a developer that is a mild inconvenience. For someone who does not want to think about authentication headers and pagination, it is the difference between a workflow existing and not existing.
So the honest framing: the connector gap is a real advantage for Make with non-technical users, and close to irrelevant for people comfortable with an HTTP call.
Branching, logic, and where each one gets awkward
This is where the philosophies separate most visibly.
Make models a workflow as a scenario of connected modules, with routers for branching and filters on the paths. It is legible for linear flows. As branches multiply the canvas grows, and inspecting what a module actually does takes several clicks, so the overview and the detail are hard to hold at once.
n8n uses a node graph where any node can contain JavaScript. When the built-in nodes do not express what you need, you drop into a Code node and write it. That ceiling is much higher, and it is also a ceiling made of code you now maintain.
The practical consequence: a moderately complex workflow in Make becomes a large diagram, and the same workflow in n8n becomes a smaller diagram with logic hidden inside a few nodes. Both are harder to hand over than their authors expect.
The opinion, since this post should have one: if you write code, n8n’s model will feel like less friction, because the escape hatch is always there and you already know the language. If you do not, Make’s constraints are doing you a favour, and n8n’s flexibility is mostly an invitation to build something only you can maintain.
Self-hosting is the actual decision
n8n can be self-hosted under a fair-code licence. Make cannot. For a lot of teams this single fact settles the comparison before any feature is compared.
It matters for three concrete reasons. Data residency, when workflows carry personal or regulated data that should not transit a third party. Cost at volume, because operation-based pricing scales with executions while a server does not. And access to internal systems, since a self-hosted instance sits inside your network and can reach a database that is not on the public internet.
The counterweight is that self-hosting is real operational work, and this is where people underestimate.
- The instance needs a database of its own to hold workflows, credentials, and execution history.
- It needs TLS and a domain, because webhook endpoints must be publicly reachable and authenticated.
- Execution history grows without bound and will fill the disk unless pruning is configured.
- Version upgrades occasionally change node behaviour, so upgrades want testing rather than trust.
- Encrypted credentials sit in your database, so its backups are now security-sensitive.
None of that is difficult. All of it is ongoing, and it is the part that gets skipped when someone reports that self-hosting is free.
Pricing models that are not comparable
Make charges by operations, where each module execution counts. A workflow of ten modules running hourly consumes 7,200 operations a month, which is easy to reason about and easy to underestimate when a loop iterates over a hundred records.
n8n cloud charges by executions, where a whole workflow run counts once regardless of node count. For workflows with many steps this is dramatically cheaper. Self-hosted, you pay for the server and nothing per run.
The result is that a spreadsheet comparison is nearly meaningless unless it models your actual workflow shape. Many steps and low frequency favours n8n’s model heavily. Few steps and high frequency narrows the gap considerably.
The failure mode with operation pricing is the loop that iterates more than expected. A workflow processing a list quietly costs proportional to the list, and the bill arrives before the realisation does.
Choosing, briefly
- Nobody on the team writes code, and the tools you connect are mainstream: Make.
- Data cannot leave your infrastructure, or workflows must reach internal systems: n8n, self-hosted. This is not a preference, it is a constraint.
- The workflows have many steps and run often: n8n, on execution-based or self-hosted pricing.
- You want AI agent workflows with real control over tools and memory: n8n, whose model will feel familiar if you have used an agent framework.
- You want it working this afternoon with nobody owning a server: Make.
And the boring observation: plenty of teams run both, using the managed tool for departmental workflows and the self-hosted one for anything touching production data. That is not indecision, it is matching the tool to the sensitivity of the data.
What self-hosting n8n actually needs
If the self-hosted route is the one, the shopping list is short and specific: a server that stays up, a Postgres database for workflow and execution storage, a domain with a certificate so webhooks resolve, and somewhere to see logs when a run fails.
n8n is one of the managed tools on RunxBuild, deployed with its own plan, custom domains, environment variables, autoscaling, and logs, with a managed Postgres alongside it. On a $6 Basic plan with a managed database next to it, the recurring work reduces to the upgrade decision.
That is not the only way to run it, and a VPS you administer yourself is perfectly reasonable. The point is to count the ongoing work honestly when comparing against a per-operation bill, because that comparison is usually made with the server cost included and the maintenance cost at zero.
How this fits the rest of the stack
The comparison that actually decides this is not feature against feature, it is a per-operation bill against a server plus the attention it needs. Modelling the second half is the part people skip, and it is worth doing with real numbers before committing either way. The RunxBuild hosting calculator shows an n8n instance and the managed Postgres it needs as separate line items, which makes the total straightforward to compare against a usage-based quote.
Useful related references:
- n8n Use Cases: What It Is Genuinely Good At, and What It Is Not
- n8n Alternatives: The Honest Comparison by What You Are Escaping
- n8n AI Agent Node: What It Does and When a Plain Chain Is Better
- Services on RunxBuild
FAQ
Is n8n better than Make?
Neither is better in general. n8n suits people comfortable writing logic and teams that need self-hosting. Make suits non-technical users and workflows built mostly from mainstream connectors. The self-hosting requirement is what usually decides it.
Is n8n free?
The self-hosted community edition is free under a fair-code licence, though you pay for the server, the database, and the maintenance. n8n also sells a managed cloud plan priced per execution.
Does n8n have fewer integrations than Make?
Yes, roughly 400 to 500 native nodes against 1,500 to 2,000 for Make. The gap matters less than it looks because n8n’s HTTP request node handles any REST API, provided you are comfortable reading API documentation.
What does it take to self-host n8n?
A server, a Postgres database for workflows and execution history, a domain with TLS so webhooks are reachable, pruning configured so execution history does not fill the disk, and secure backups since encrypted credentials live in that database.
Which is cheaper, n8n or Make?
It depends on workflow shape. Make counts every module execution, so many-step workflows get expensive quickly. n8n counts whole runs, or nothing per run when self-hosted. Model your real workflows rather than comparing headline prices.