n8n vs. Make
n8n vs. Make · choosing a workflow automation platform
Both connect your apps and automate the busywork. One you can self-host and own; the other is a polished SaaS you rent. The split is about control and data residency.
option An8noption BMakeserviceCustom software · everything else
→ Verdict
For a business that wants to own the automation, keep data in-house, and add custom code freely, n8n wins — especially self-hosted. Make wins when you want the fastest no-code start and don't mind workflow data passing through a third-party SaaS.
Pick a topic
When to pick which
A · Pick this when…
n8n
- 01You want to self-host so the data never leaves your servers
- 02Your workflows need custom code or calls to internal-only APIs
- 03You expect high run volumes and don't want per-operation pricing to bite
- 04You want the automation to be a portable asset you own
B · Pick that when…
Make
- 01You want the fastest possible no-code start with zero hosting
- 02Your team prefers a visual builder over anything code-shaped
- 03Run volumes are modest and predictable
- 04You're fine with workflow data routed through a managed SaaS
Factors to weigh
Factor-by-factor
| Factors to weigh | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting | Self-host or n8n Cloud · your choice | SaaS only · no self-host option |
| Data residency | Self-hosted = data stays on your own infrastructure | Workflow data passes through Make's cloud |
| Pricing model | Self-host = flat infra cost regardless of run count | Priced per operation · scales with usage |
| Custom code | Full JavaScript / Python nodes, any npm package | Limited custom functions, less freedom |
| Learning curve | Slightly steeper · more power exposed | Very approachable, polished UX |
| Ownership | Portable · export the workflow and run it anywhere | Locked to the Make platform |
Let's get started.
Send an email or book a 30-minute call.