Comparison
n8n vs Make vs Zapier: which workflow automation platform should an SME pick?
The three platforms most SMEs evaluate, compared honestly. Pricing models, hosting, where each one stops scaling, and when we recommend each at Morsof.
In short
Zapier is the easiest entry point for simple A-to-B connectors and non-tech users. Make handles visual scenarios with branching, iterators and formatters well. n8n is the production-grade choice when automation is core to operations: complex logic, self-hosting, ownership of the system, and a pricing model that does not punish workflow volume. We default to n8n for clients building durable automation.
At a glance
Six dimensions that decide the answer
Pick on pricing model, hosting, complexity ceiling and team profile, not on logos.
| Dimension | n8n | Make (formerly Integromat) | Zapier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Per execution on cloud, or self-hosted (free runtime, you pay infra) | Per operation (each module call counts) | Per task (each step billed, scales painfully with workflow size) |
| Hosting | Cloud OR self-hosted on your own infra | Cloud only | Cloud only |
| Visual editor | Node-based canvas, branching, loops, sub-workflows | Scenario canvas, strong on branching and iterators | Linear by default, multi-step paths added later |
| Code escape hatch | Full JavaScript code node, custom functions, env vars, version-controlled | iML expression language, modest scripting | Code by Zapier (JS or Python, sandboxed, limited) |
| Production patterns | Workflow versioning, error workflows, retries, monitoring, queueing | Error handlers, retries, scenario history | Basic retries, task history, no proper versioning |
| Best for | Production-grade workflows, complex logic, data sovereignty, ownership | Visual non-tech glue with branching and iterators | Simple connectors for non-tech users, low workflow volume |
Pricing model
- n8n
- Per execution on cloud, or self-hosted (free runtime, you pay infra)
- Make (formerly Integromat)
- Per operation (each module call counts)
- Zapier
- Per task (each step billed, scales painfully with workflow size)
Hosting
- n8n
- Cloud OR self-hosted on your own infra
- Make (formerly Integromat)
- Cloud only
- Zapier
- Cloud only
Visual editor
- n8n
- Node-based canvas, branching, loops, sub-workflows
- Make (formerly Integromat)
- Scenario canvas, strong on branching and iterators
- Zapier
- Linear by default, multi-step paths added later
Code escape hatch
- n8n
- Full JavaScript code node, custom functions, env vars, version-controlled
- Make (formerly Integromat)
- iML expression language, modest scripting
- Zapier
- Code by Zapier (JS or Python, sandboxed, limited)
Production patterns
- n8n
- Workflow versioning, error workflows, retries, monitoring, queueing
- Make (formerly Integromat)
- Error handlers, retries, scenario history
- Zapier
- Basic retries, task history, no proper versioning
Best for
- n8n
- Production-grade workflows, complex logic, data sovereignty, ownership
- Make (formerly Integromat)
- Visual non-tech glue with branching and iterators
- Zapier
- Simple connectors for non-tech users, low workflow volume
When to pick each
Three honest recommendations
Each platform is the right answer for someone. Not the same someone.
Zapier
Simplest, fastest start
Best when you have one to five simple connectors, no engineering team, and you are willing to pay per task. Don't expect to scale complex logic or high volume here. Past a few thousand tasks a month, the bill stops making sense.
Make
Visual scenarios with branching
Best for non-tech users who outgrew Zapier but don't need code escape hatches or self-hosting. Strong at multi-branch scenarios, iterators, data transformation. Still cloud-only and per-operation, so very high-volume workflows can get expensive.
n8n
Production-grade, ownership, scale
Best when automation is core to operations, when workflow volume makes per-task pricing brutal, when self-hosting matters (data, compliance, regulated industries), when you need complex transformations, versioning, and proper error workflows. Steeper to set up well, lower ongoing cost.
Our take
Why we default to n8n at Morsof
We build production-grade automation for SMEs, which means our clients are not running five connectors, they're running fifty workflows that touch ERP, CRM, AI, document storage and customer-facing channels. At that volume, per-task pricing on Zapier becomes a tax on growth, and per-operation pricing on Make adds up too. Self-hosting on n8n removes that ceiling. The trade-off is that n8n needs proper engineering, monitoring and versioning to run well in production, which is exactly the work we do. For a non-tech founder running visual workflows on the side, Make is a fair recommendation. For someone wiring two SaaS apps together once, Zapier is fine.
Frequently asked questions
What clients ask before they pick a platform.
Which one is cheapest?
It depends on volume. Zapier and Make have free tiers but they cap out fast. At any real volume, self-hosted n8n is the cheapest by a wide margin (you pay infra only). On cloud n8n, per-execution pricing usually beats per-task Zapier once you cross a few thousand runs a month. The honest answer: 'cheapest' is the wrong question. 'Cheapest at my growth volume in 12 months' is the right one.
Can I migrate from Zapier or Make to n8n later?
Yes, and many clients do. The trigger is usually pricing pain or a feature ceiling, not a technical problem. There's no automatic converter, you rebuild each workflow in n8n. The good news: workflows that were complicated to express in Zapier or Make are often simpler in n8n. We migrate clients in 1 to 3 weeks depending on workflow count.
Is Make easier than n8n for non-technical users?
Yes, Make has the gentler learning curve for non-technical users. The visual scenario builder is more guided. n8n is more powerful but expects more from the user. If your team will own automation maintenance and no one is technical, Make is a fair choice. If you'll have engineering involvement (in-house or agency), n8n's ceiling is much higher.
Does Zapier or Make support self-hosting?
No, both are cloud-only. Only n8n offers self-hosting. This matters if you have data residency requirements, regulated industries (finance, healthcare, public sector), or want to keep credentials and customer data on your own infrastructure.
What's the difference between 'operations' (Make) and 'tasks' (Zapier)?
Same idea, different naming. Both bill per module/step call. A workflow that fetches data, transforms it and writes to two destinations is 4 operations on Make or 4 tasks on Zapier. n8n cloud bills per workflow execution (one execution can do many steps), which usually makes high-volume workflows cheaper. Self-hosted n8n bills nothing per execution.
Where does AI workflow automation fit in?
All three platforms have AI nodes (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.) and can call AI models inside workflows. n8n has the most flexible AI tooling (LangChain integration, agent nodes, custom code for embeddings and vector stores). Make and Zapier have AI nodes but less depth around RAG and multi-step agents. If AI is core to your automation, n8n is the safer bet.
Not sure which one fits your stack?
Book a 30-minute review. You leave with a 1-page recommendation for your specific workflow volume, team profile and data constraints, even if you don't engage us.