n8n vs Make: 2026 comparison

n8n and Make in brief

n8n and Make connect applications, trigger actions and transform data through visual workflows. Both also list the creation of AI agents. n8n stands out in the supplied information for its free self-hosted Community edition and explicit execution inspection features. Make emphasizes building or fixing a scenario from an instruction. Your choice depends on where you want to run the automation, how you plan to maintain it and whether instruction-based scenario assistance matches your working habits.

n8n : n8n helps people automate tasks between applications using visual workflows. It triggers tasks from events, transforms data between services, creates agents using models and tools, and supports execution review.

Make : Make lets teams connect applications in visual scenarios and trigger actions from events. It also transforms data between applications, creates AI agents, and builds or corrects scenarios from instructions.

Both meet the same need, which makes the comparison useful. We compare them on 10 verifiable criteria, using the same data as their profiles, collected from official sites.

Comparison table

Criterion by criterion

For each criterion: why it matters, each one's value and who has the edge. A criterion without data on both sides is not decided.

Free tier

A free tier lets you test the tool on your own examples before paying anything. n8n : yes. Make : yes. A tie on this point.

Entry price

The first paid plan, per month, gives the minimum cost of regular use; higher plans cost more. n8n : €20 per month. Make : not published. Cannot be decided: data missing on one side.

Public API

An API lets you connect the tool to your software, an automation tool or an AI agent. n8n : yes. Make : yes. A tie on this point.

Data export

Being able to get your content back avoids lock-in the day you want to switch tools. n8n : yes. Make : yes. A tie on this point.

Data hosting

Where data is stored matters for GDPR and client data: the EU or local processing make compliance simpler. n8n : European Union. Make : several regions. Edge: n8n.

Interface languages

More interface languages make the tool easier to roll out across an international team. n8n : 1. Make : 1. A tie on this point.

Platforms

The more platforms (web, desktop, mobile, extension), the better the tool fits your daily routine. n8n : web browser and API. Make : web browser and API. A tie on this point.

Open source

Public code lets you audit the tool, self-host it and keep using it if the publisher changes course. n8n : no. Make : no. A tie on this point.

Track record

A tool launched several years ago has a longer history: less risk of sudden shutdown, more user feedback. n8n : launched in 2019. Make : launched in 2022. Edge: n8n.

Recognition

The number of reference community lists citing the tool shows how well known it is among practitioners. n8n : cited in 1 list. Make : cited in 0 lists. Edge: n8n.

In charts

Our analysis

n8n and Make target people who want to organize exchanges between applications using visual scenarios. Both describe event-based triggers and transformations that prepare data for another service. Published by n8n GmbH, n8n lists agents that use models and tools, together with inspecting executions and correcting errors. Make, published by Celonis s.r.o., lists AI agents and the ability to build or repair a scenario from an instruction. These are differences in the documented feature sets. They do not establish that either product is generally easier to use or connects to more applications. The records contain no comparative usability findings or connector inventories.

Both products use a freemium model and have a free offering. n8n’s entry Cloud price is EUR 20 per month with annual billing, totaling EUR 240 per year. A free self-hosted Community edition is also specified. Make’s entry price is not published in the supplied information, preventing a numerical comparison of paid plans. Neither record details execution allowances, quotas or the full scope of free access. A free self-hosted edition also does not quantify the resources needed to operate it. Scores of 78 for n8n and 65 for Make assess access and transparency rather than the quality of their automation capabilities.

n8n lists European Union data hosting, while Make lists mixed hosting. Those categories can inform location requirements, but they do not describe every data flow created by a workflow. n8n specifies JSON export and .n8np packages in preview. Make specifies JSON export for scenarios. Both records classify the products as closed source. The existence of n8n’s self-hosted Community edition should therefore be distinguished from an open source classification in this comparison. The supplied information does not describe retention policies or processing arrangements at connected services. Exporting a scenario also does not, by itself, document how all associated execution data can be retrieved.

Both products are available through the web and offer an API. Each record lists one interface language without French. In everyday maintenance, n8n’s explicit execution inspection and error correction features may be relevant if you need to investigate workflow behavior. Make’s instruction-based scenario building and repair may fit a different way of designing or adjusting automations. The supplied information does not identify available connectors or provide reliability measurements, so a specific integration cannot be confirmed from these records. Category positions of 1 out of 11 and 6 out of 11 also do not establish whether the applications and operations required by your workflow are covered.

Depending on your situation

The right choice depends on use. For a few common situations, here are the criteria that matter and who wins (n8n value / Make value).

Personal use on a tight budget

Neither stands out on the criteria for this situation (free tier (yes / yes), entry price (€20 per month / not published), and interface languages (1 / 1)): decide with a trial.

Business use with client data

Here, n8n has the edge: it wins 2 of the 3 criteria that matter in this situation, namely data hosting (European Union / several regions), data export (yes / yes), and track record (launched in 2019 / launched in 2022).

Integration with your software

Neither stands out on the criteria for this situation (public api (yes / yes), open source (no / no), and platforms (web browser and API / web browser and API)): decide with a trial.

Which one to choose?

Choose n8n if…

• you value data hosting (European Union)
• you value track record (launched in 2019)
• you value recognition (cited in 1 list)

n8n fits users who want a free self-hosted Community edition or explicitly listed European Union hosting. It also suits workflows where inspecting executions and correcting errors are central maintenance tasks. Its published Cloud entry price helps establish an initial budget, although quotas and the resources required to operate a deployment remain unspecified in the supplied record.

Choose Make if…

Make does not lead on any measurable criterion; it is still relevant if you already use it or prefer it after a trial.

Make fits users who want visual application workflows and an instruction-based way to create or fix scenarios. Its free offering provides a possible starting point, within limits that are not described here. JSON scenario export is documented. Planning a paid deployment requires additional pricing information because the supplied record does not publish an entry price.

Strengths and limits of each

n8n

• + Free tier to try it
• + Public API
• + Data hosted in the EU
• − More expensive than its category median

Make

• + Free tier to try it
• + Public API
• + Established since 2022
• − Price not published

The best test is still yours: take three real tasks from your day and give them to both for a week.

What about the others?

If neither suits you, look at Zapier, Hexowatch, Shotstack Workflows, Nekton, Bardeen, and AI-Flow.

Related comparisons:

• n8n vs Zapier
• Make vs Zapier
• Dify vs n8n
• n8n vs AutoGPT
• n8n vs Langflow

Conclusion

n8n distinguishes itself through documented hosting options and a stated Cloud entry price. Make emphasizes using instructions to build or repair scenarios. Both cover the common foundations of visual automation and list AI agents. Choose according to the applications you need, your deployment requirements and how you intend to maintain workflows. The available records do not support a cost comparison at an equivalent execution volume or workload.