n8n vs Zapier vs Make
A comparison of n8n's self-hostable, code-friendly automation against Zapier's polished no-code integration catalog and Make's visual branching canvas, covering pricing models, AI agent support, and data residency.
Quick Answer
Zapier has the largest app catalog and the smoothest no-code experience but charges per task and gets expensive fast. Make offers visual multi-branch workflows at lower per-operation cost. n8n is self-hostable and code-friendly, making it the choice when volume, data residency, or custom logic matter.
Reviewed by TechLogHub Engineering Team. Last updated October 15, 2026. Updated for n8n's expanded AI agent nodes, Zapier's AI-assisted workflow building, and current pricing model differences across task, operation, and execution billing.
| Feature |  n8n | Zapier | Make |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting Model | Self-hosted or n8n Cloud | SaaS only | SaaS only |
| Pricing Unit | Per workflow execution | Per task, where each step counts | Per operation |
| Integration Count | Hundreds, plus a generic HTTP node | Thousands | Over a thousand |
| Custom Code Support | JavaScript and Python code nodes | Limited code steps | Limited scripting support |
| AI Capabilities | Dedicated AI agent and LLM nodes | AI workflow builder and AI action steps | AI modules and LLM integrations |
| Data Residency | Full control when self-hosted | Zapier infrastructure | Make infrastructure, with EU region options |
| Version Control | Workflows are exportable JSON | Version history in-product, no external repo | In-product versioning |
| Target User | Technical and semi-technical builders | Non-technical business users | Semi-technical builders |
n8n
A source-available workflow automation tool that can be self-hosted or used as a managed cloud service, combining a visual node canvas with the ability to drop into JavaScript or Python at any step.
Pros
- Self-hostable — your data and credentials stay on your infrastructure
- Billed per workflow execution rather than per step, so complex flows don't multiply cost
- Code nodes let you write JavaScript or Python inline when the visual approach runs out
- Strong AI agent and LLM nodes for building agentic automations
- HTTP request node handles any API without waiting for an official integration
- Version control friendly — workflows are JSON you can commit and review
Cons
- Smaller catalog of prebuilt integrations than Zapier
- Self-hosting means you own uptime, upgrades, and backups
- Steeper learning curve for genuinely non-technical users
- Source-available rather than fully open source, with commercial use restrictions to check
- Community support is good but not the same as an enterprise support contract
Best For
Technical teams, high-volume automations where per-task pricing hurts, workflows handling sensitive data, and anyone building AI agents that need custom logic.
Zapier
The most established no-code automation platform, connecting thousands of SaaS applications through a linear trigger-and-action model with an emphasis on accessibility for non-technical users.
Pros
- Largest integration catalog by a wide margin — thousands of apps supported
- Easiest experience for non-technical users; most people build their first Zap unassisted
- AI-assisted workflow building generates a draft from a plain-language description
- Reliable managed infrastructure with no operational responsibility
- Extensive templates for common business workflows
- Strong enterprise support and compliance posture
Cons
- Per-task pricing gets expensive quickly at volume — each step consumes a task
- Limited branching and looping compared to Make's canvas
- Custom code steps exist but are constrained in runtime and dependencies
- No self-hosting option, so data flows through Zapier's infrastructure
- Deep customization hits ceilings that require workarounds
Best For
Non-technical teams, business operations automations connecting mainstream SaaS tools, and low-to-moderate volume workflows where ease matters more than cost per run.
Make
A visual automation platform built around a node canvas that makes multi-branch, iterative workflows explicit, positioned between Zapier's simplicity and n8n's technical depth.
Pros
- Visual canvas handles branching, routing, and iteration far better than linear builders
- Cheaper per operation than Zapier's per-task model for multi-step flows
- Built-in iterators, aggregators, and error handlers for genuinely complex logic
- Large integration catalog, second only to Zapier
- Detailed execution inspection makes debugging failed runs straightforward
- Reasonable middle ground for semi-technical users
Cons
- The canvas gets visually unwieldy on large workflows
- Steeper onboarding than Zapier for complete beginners
- No self-hosting, so data residency is not under your control
- Operation-based pricing still scales with complexity, just more slowly
- Custom code support is more limited than n8n's
Best For
Teams whose workflows have real branching and conditional logic, mid-volume automations where Zapier's task pricing is painful, and users comfortable with a visual builder.
The Pricing Unit Is the Hidden Variable
These platforms bill on structurally different units, and that difference dominates cost at scale. Zapier counts each step as a task, so a seven-step workflow running a thousand times consumes seven thousand tasks. Make bills per operation, which is similar in kind but typically cheaper per unit. n8n bills per workflow execution, so a seven-step flow and a two-step flow cost the same. Model your actual step count against your actual run volume before comparing headline prices — the ranking flips depending on workflow shape.
Self-Hosting Changes the Cost Curve, Not Just the Bill
n8n's self-hosted option converts a subscription that grows with usage into a fixed infrastructure cost plus the engineering time to run it. For high-volume automation that's a dramatic difference, and it's the main reason technical teams migrate off Zapier. The honest counterweight is that you now own uptime, upgrades, backups, and credential security for a system that touches many of your other systems. Price the operational burden, not just the server.
Data Residency Is Often the Deciding Factor
Automation platforms handle credentials and route business data through their infrastructure, which is a genuine consideration in regulated industries and for anyone with GDPR obligations. Zapier and Make are SaaS-only, though Make offers EU region options. Self-hosted n8n keeps everything inside your perimeter. For many organizations this isn't a preference but a compliance requirement that eliminates options before features are even compared.
AI Agents Have Shifted the Comparison
All three added AI capabilities, but at different depths. Zapier's AI helps you build workflows from a description, which lowers the barrier for non-technical users. n8n's dedicated AI agent and LLM nodes are aimed at building agentic automations — tool-calling loops, memory, and multi-step reasoning inside a workflow. If your goal is an AI agent that acts on your systems rather than a workflow assisted by AI, that difference in depth matters.
Verdict
Zapier is right when the people building automations aren't engineers and the volume is modest — the catalog and ease of use are worth the premium. Make is the sensible middle when workflows have real branching and Zapier's task pricing has started to sting. n8n is right when you have technical capacity and any of volume, data residency, or custom logic is a hard requirement — self-hosting turns a growing subscription into a fixed infrastructure cost.