Is n8n cheaper than Make?

It can be, if you self-host it: you pay for a server instead of a per-operation subscription, which is often cheaper at high volume but requires someone to maintain it. On n8n Cloud, pricing is closer to Make's, so the cost difference mostly disappears unless you self-host.

Can I migrate a workflow from Make to n8n later?

Not automatically. The two tools use different data models and node logic, so migrating means rebuilding the workflow, not importing a file. This is another reason to get the tool choice reasonably right from the start, even if it's not permanent.

Do I need a developer to use n8n?

Not strictly, but it helps. n8n's visual editor is accessible to non-developers for simple workflows, but anything involving custom code nodes, complex conditionals, or API debugging goes faster with someone comfortable reading JSON and basic scripting.

What if my process changes constantly, does that affect the choice?

It affects it more than the tool itself. If your process is still evolving, invest less time in building an elaborate automation and more in the process definition and testing loop. Both tools support quick edits, but constant rework has a cost regardless of the platform.

n8n vs Make: How to Choose to Automate Processes in Your SME

n8n and Make are the two tools we get asked about most. The short answer: n8n wins when you need custom logic and control over your data; Make wins when you want to move fast with native integrations. The real decision, though, is about your process first.

What's the actual difference between n8n and Make?

Both are workflow automation platforms: you connect apps, define triggers, and let data move between systems without manual intervention. On paper they solve the same problem. In practice, they feel different to work with, and that difference is usually what decides which one fits your business.

Make (formerly Integromat) is built around a highly visual canvas. You drag modules onto a circular flow, connect them, and configure each one through forms. It's fast to start with, has a large library of native app integrations, and its visual style makes it easier for non-technical people to follow what a workflow does just by looking at it.

n8n takes a more technical approach. It's open-source, can be self-hosted, and gives you a node-based editor where you have more room to write custom code (JavaScript or Python), handle complex conditional logic, and control exactly how data is transformed at each step. It also has native integrations, but the ecosystem leans more toward "you can build anything" than "everything is pre-built for you."

Neither is objectively better. They're built for slightly different jobs.

When does n8n make more sense?

n8n tends to be the right call when:

You need self-hosting, for data residency, compliance, or simply because you don't want your business logic living entirely on a third-party's cloud.
The workflow has non-trivial logic: multiple conditional branches, custom data transformations, loops, or calls to internal systems that need specific handling.
You have someone technical on the team (or working with you) who is comfortable debugging JSON payloads and writing small scripts when a native integration doesn't quite do what you need.
Cost at scale matters. Self-hosted n8n has no per-operation pricing, so once volume grows, it can be meaningfully cheaper than a subscription-based tool — provided someone maintains the server.

A typical SME case: a company that pulls data from three internal tools, applies business rules that don't map cleanly to a simple "if this then that," and pushes the result into a reporting system. That kind of workflow benefits from n8n's flexibility.

When does Make make more sense?

Make tends to win when:

Speed to first result matters more than long-term flexibility. You can have a working automation in an afternoon, without touching code.
The workflow is relatively linear: trigger, transform, send. Most day-to-day SME automations — new lead into CRM, invoice into accounting software, form submission into a spreadsheet and a Slack notification — fall into this category.
You don't want to manage infrastructure. Make is fully cloud-hosted; there's no server to patch or monitor.
Your team is non-technical and needs to be able to open a workflow, understand it, and make small edits without calling in a developer every time.

A typical SME case: a small e-commerce business connecting its store, its email marketing tool, and its invoicing software, with straightforward "when X happens, do Y" logic. Make handles this comfortably and keeps the barrier to entry low for whoever owns the workflow day to day.

Does pricing actually decide this?

It's a factor, but rarely the deciding one, and it's more nuanced than "n8n is free."

Make charges per operation, with tiers that scale with usage. For low-to-moderate volume, this is predictable and easy to budget. As volume grows, cost grows with it.

n8n offers a cloud version with pricing that's broadly comparable to Make's, and a self-hosted version where you pay for infrastructure instead of operations. Self-hosting removes the per-operation ceiling, which matters if you're running thousands of executions a month, but it introduces a fixed cost (server, and someone's time to maintain it) that doesn't disappear even in a slow month.

The honest comparison isn't "which is cheaper" in the abstract — it's "what does our expected volume and our appetite for managing infrastructure look like." A ten-person company running a handful of workflows a day rarely sees a meaningful cost difference between the two. A company running high-volume, always-on automations might.

Does the tool actually matter more than the process?

Less than most vendor comparisons suggest. We've seen the same badly-defined process fail in both tools, and the same well-defined process succeed in both. The tool is the delivery mechanism; the process is what determines whether the automation actually saves time or just moves the manual work somewhere less visible.

Before comparing platforms, it's worth answering three questions: What exactly triggers this process today? What decisions does a person currently make manually, and can they be written as clear rules? What happens when something goes wrong — does someone need to be notified, or can the system retry on its own? If those answers are fuzzy, no tool will fix that. If they're clear, both n8n and Make can execute on them well.

So which one should you pick?

As a starting rule: if your workflows are mostly straightforward, your team isn't technical, and you want results fast, start with Make. If you're dealing with more complex logic, want more control over your data and infrastructure, or expect volume to grow significantly, n8n is worth the slightly steeper learning curve.

If you're not sure which category you fall into, that's usually a sign the process itself needs mapping out before the tool choice matters much. That's the part we usually start with.