Comparison
n8n vs Zapier vs Make
Three tools, three billing models, and one question that settles it faster than a feature list.
Pick Zapier if nobody on the team writes code and speed matters more than cost. Pick Make if you want branching and error handling without code. Pick n8n if you have engineers, care about cost at high volume, or need data to stay on your own infrastructure.
The difference
What is the real difference between n8n, Zapier and Make?
How they bill and who they are built for. Zapier charges per task and suits non-technical teams; n8n charges per execution and suits engineers.
Feature comparisons of these three are mostly noise, because all three will connect your form to your CRM and all three will do it reliably. The differences that actually decide the choice are the billing model, who can maintain the thing afterwards, and whether your data is allowed to leave your infrastructure.
The billing model is the one people discover too late. Zapier bills per task, where a task is an individual action. A workflow with eight steps consumes eight tasks every time it runs. n8n bills per execution, where the whole workflow counts once no matter how many steps it has. At low volume this is irrelevant. At high volume with complex workflows it is the entire cost conversation.
The maintenance question is the one people skip. The best platform for your team is the one somebody there can still fix in six months. An n8n instance built by a contractor who has since left is worse than a Zapier workflow your operations lead understands, regardless of which is technically superior.
Self-hosting is the only genuinely binary difference. If a compliance requirement means customer data cannot pass through a third party, n8n is the only one of the three that answers it, and that settles the decision before any other criterion is reached.
Side by side
What does each platform actually give you?
Zapier gives the widest integration catalogue and the shortest path to a working automation. Make gives visual depth. n8n gives control, code and self-hosting.
Zapier
Teams with no engineering resource who need a working automation this afternoon rather than an optimal one this quarter.
Strengths
- The largest integration catalogue of the three by a wide margin, so the tool you need is probably already supported.
- The shortest path from idea to working automation, and the easiest for a non-technical colleague to maintain after you build it.
- Mature, stable, and extremely well documented.
Weaknesses
- Bills per task, meaning per action rather than per workflow, so a multi-step workflow multiplies cost with every step you add.
- Least control over branching, error handling and data transformation.
- No self-hosting, so your data passes through their infrastructure.
Make
Teams who want branching, error handling and real data manipulation without writing code, at a lower cost than Zapier.
Strengths
- A visual canvas that shows exactly how data moves between steps, which makes debugging far easier than reading a linear list.
- Genuine branching, routers, filters and error handlers without code.
- Generally better value per workflow than Zapier for the same complexity.
Weaknesses
- A smaller integration catalogue than Zapier, so an obscure tool may need a generic HTTP call.
- The canvas becomes hard to read once a scenario grows past a certain size.
- No self-hosting option, so the data residency question is the same as Zapier's.
n8n
Teams with engineering resource, high execution volume, or a compliance requirement that data never leaves their infrastructure.
Strengths
- Bills per execution rather than per task, so a workflow with many steps costs the same as one with few. At volume this is the difference that matters most.
- Can be self-hosted, so data never leaves your own infrastructure. That is the deciding factor in regulated environments.
- A generic HTTP node means anything with a public API is reachable, so the native integration count understates what it can connect to.
- Code nodes where the visual approach runs out, which is where the other two stop.
Weaknesses
- Self-hosting is infrastructure you now own, monitor and upgrade. Unowned infrastructure decays.
- Fewer native integrations, so more setup falls to you.
- Steeper learning curve, and genuinely hard for a non-technical colleague to maintain.
| Criterion | Zapier | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billing model | Per task, so per action | Per operation | Per execution, so per whole workflow |
| Cost as steps increase | Rises with every step | Rises with every operation | Largely flat |
| Self-hosting | No | No | Yes, and it is the main reason to choose it |
| Integration breadth | Widest | Middle | Fewest native, plus a generic HTTP node |
| Who can maintain it | Anyone | A capable non-developer | Realistically a developer |
| Branching and error handling | Limited | Strong, visual | Strong, plus code |
| Time to first working workflow | Minutes | An hour or so | Longer, especially self-hosted |
Deciding
How do you choose between them?
Count your workflow steps, check whether anyone can maintain infrastructure, and decide whether your data is allowed to leave your own servers.
How many steps do your workflows have?
Count them. Short workflows run cheaply anywhere. Long workflows running frequently are where per-task billing compounds, and where per-execution billing starts to look very different on the invoice.
Who maintains it when it breaks?
Not who builds it, who fixes it at 9am when a client-facing automation has stopped. If the honest answer is a non-technical colleague, that rules out self-hosted n8n regardless of its other advantages.
Is your data allowed to leave your infrastructure?
In regulated industries this is not a preference. If the answer is no, n8n self-hosted is the only one of the three that qualifies, and the rest of the comparison is academic.
How obscure are the tools you need to connect?
Mainstream software is supported everywhere. Niche or internal systems are where Zapier's catalogue helps most and where n8n's generic HTTP node quietly wins, because anything with an API is reachable.
How fast do you need this running?
If the answer is today, Zapier. Optimising the platform choice for a workflow that has not proved its value yet is a common and expensive way to not ship anything.
The verdict
So which should you pick?
Zapier if speed matters most, Make if you want power without code, n8n if you have engineers and care about cost at volume.
Start with Zapier if nobody on the team writes code and you need something working now. It costs more and it will feel constraining later, and both of those are acceptable prices for a workflow that actually exists.
Choose Make if you want real branching, error handling and data manipulation without writing code, and you want better value than Zapier for the same complexity. For most marketing teams this is the sensible middle, and it is where we most often land.
Choose n8n if you have engineering resource and either high execution volume or a data residency requirement. Those two conditions are what justify owning infrastructure. Without at least one of them, self-hosting is a maintenance burden bought for no return.
One thing that applies whichever you pick: automation makes an existing process faster, including a bad one. If the process is not written down as steps and rules, no platform choice fixes that, and writing it down often removes the need for the project.
When we are the wrong choice
We are the wrong choice if you need one form connected to one CRM. That is an afternoon in Zapier and hiring anyone to do it is a waste of your money. We are also the wrong choice for a pure engineering build with no marketing judgement in it: if you already know exactly what to build and just need hands, a developer will be cheaper and faster than we will.
Related services:AI marketing automationAI agent development
Questions
What else do people ask about these three?
Whether self-hosting is worth it, how the billing models actually differ at volume, whether to migrate, and where AI agents fit.
Is self-hosting n8n worth it?
Only if you have someone to own it or a compliance requirement that forces it. Self-hosting is infrastructure: it needs monitoring, upgrades and someone who notices when it stops. Without that, the cloud version of any of the three beats a neglected self-hosted instance.
How much cheaper is per-execution billing really?
It depends entirely on your step count and run frequency, which is why we will not quote you a multiplier. Work it out with your own numbers: multiply your steps by your monthly runs for the per-task model, and compare against runs alone for the per-execution one. The gap widens as workflows get longer.
Should we migrate what we already have?
Usually not on cost alone. Migration costs real time and reintroduces bugs into workflows that currently work. Migrate when you are rebuilding anyway, when the cost difference has become material rather than theoretical, or when a compliance requirement forces it.
Where do AI agents fit into these tools?
All three now offer AI nodes, and the useful framing is unchanged: use them where the input is unstructured language and the task is interpretation. Anything numeric or rule-based should stay as an ordinary step, because a model doing arithmetic is right most of the time, which is the worst possible reliability profile.
Can we use more than one?
Yes, and plenty of teams do without planning to. It is worth being deliberate about it though, because two automation platforms means two places to look when something breaks and two bills nobody reviews.
Related comparisons
Server-side vs client-side tracking
What each one measures, what the browser loses, and when the complexity is justified.
Still not sure which fits?
Tell us what you are running and what you are choosing between. We will tell you which way we would go and why, including when the answer is not us.