n8n vs Zapier vs Make: choosing the right automation platform

If you are evaluating automation platforms in 2026, three names come up in almost every conversation: Zapier, Make, and n8n. Each one has vocal advocates, each one has real strengths, and each one has limitations that its marketing materials tend to downplay.

This guide is a direct, honest comparison based on building production workflows with all three. We will cover pricing, ease of use, integrations, self-hosting, and the scenarios where each platform genuinely excels. We will also cover the situations where all three fall short and a custom solution makes more sense.

Pricing comparison

Pricing is where these platforms diverge the most, and where the marketing numbers can be misleading. Here is what you actually pay.

Zapier

Zapier charges per "task," where each action in a workflow counts as one task. A five-step Zap that processes one record uses five tasks. At 100 records per day, that is 15,000 tasks per month, which puts you well into higher-tier pricing.

Make

Make charges per "operation," with similar counting logic: each module action is one operation. Make is significantly cheaper per operation than Zapier per task, especially at scale.

n8n

n8n's self-hosted Community Edition is the clear winner on price: free, with unlimited executions. You pay only for your server (typically $5 to $20/month). Cloud plans are competitive but become expensive at the Business tier.

The pricing verdict

For low-volume usage (under 1,000 actions/month), all three have viable free tiers. For medium volume (5,000 to 20,000 actions/month), Make is typically cheapest on cloud, and self-hosted n8n is cheapest overall. For high volume (50,000+ actions/month), self-hosted n8n has no real competition on price.

---

Ease of use

Zapier

Zapier's interface is the simplest of the three. Workflows ("Zaps") are linear: trigger, then action, then action. Adding a step takes seconds. For straightforward "when X happens, do Y" automations, Zapier is the fastest path to a working workflow.

The trade-off is flexibility. Linear workflows handle most simple automations, but when you need branching logic, error handling, loops, or data transformation, Zapier's interface becomes awkward. It supports these features (Paths for branching, Filters for conditions), but the experience feels bolted on rather than native.

Make

Make uses a visual canvas where modules connect through lines. This design makes branching, parallel execution, and error routing natural rather than forced. You can see the entire workflow at a glance, including all the conditional paths.

The learning curve is steeper than Zapier's. New users often find the interface overwhelming at first. But once you understand the module-and-connection model, building complex workflows is faster and more intuitive than in Zapier.

n8n

n8n also uses a visual canvas, similar to Make. The node-based interface supports branching, merging, loops, and error handling natively. Where n8n differs is its willingness to expose complexity: you can write custom JavaScript or Python in any node, access raw HTTP requests, and manipulate data at a granular level.

This makes n8n the most powerful of the three for complex workflows, but also the least accessible for non-technical users. If your team includes someone comfortable with code, n8n's flexibility is a major asset. If your team is entirely non-technical, n8n will be a frustrating experience.

---

Integration coverage

Zapier

Over 7,000 app integrations. The broadest coverage of any platform. If a SaaS tool has any automation integration at all, it almost certainly connects to Zapier. Many of these are maintained by the app vendors themselves, which means they tend to be reliable and up-to-date.

Make

Approximately 2,000 app integrations. Smaller than Zapier's library, but the integrations that exist are often deeper, exposing more of each app's API capabilities. Make also provides a generic HTTP module that connects to any API, which partially offsets the smaller pre-built library.

n8n

Approximately 1,000 pre-built integrations. The smallest library of the three. However, n8n's HTTP Request node and Code node mean that any API-accessible service can be integrated manually. For teams with technical capability, the smaller pre-built library is rarely a blocker.

The integration verdict

If you rely on niche SaaS tools and need pre-built, zero-code integrations, Zapier is the safest choice. If your stack uses common tools (Google Workspace, Slack, HubSpot, Notion, Stripe) and you want deeper access to their APIs, Make and n8n both deliver. If you have a developer who can configure API calls, n8n's smaller library becomes irrelevant.

---

Self-hosting and data control

This is where n8n is in a category of its own.

Zapier: Cloud only. All data passes through Zapier's servers. No self-hosting option.

Make: Cloud only. Similar to Zapier, all data flows through Make's infrastructure. No self-hosting option.

n8n: Full self-hosting via the Community Edition. Deploy on your own server (AWS, DigitalOcean, any VPS), keep all data within your infrastructure, and maintain complete control over updates, backups, and security configuration.

For businesses handling sensitive data (legal, financial, healthcare), self-hosting eliminates the third-party data processing concern entirely. This is particularly relevant under Canadian privacy legislation (PIPEDA, Law 25), where data handling and residency requirements may restrict the use of US-based cloud platforms.

---

Error handling and reliability

Zapier

Zapier provides basic error notifications via email and a task history log. Failed tasks can be replayed manually. For simple workflows, this is sufficient. For complex multi-step workflows, debugging from the task history can be tedious.

Make

Make's error handling is the most sophisticated of the three. You can define specific error-handling routes for each module: retry, ignore, commit, rollback, or break. The execution log shows exactly where a scenario failed and why, with full data inspection at each step.

n8n

n8n provides error workflows (separate workflows triggered on failure), execution logging, and the ability to inspect data at every node. Error handling within a workflow uses dedicated error-trigger nodes. It is powerful but requires more deliberate configuration than Make's built-in error routes.

---

When all three fall short

Off-the-shelf automation platforms work well for connecting existing SaaS tools in predictable patterns. They start to struggle when:

The workflow involves complex decision-making. If the logic requires understanding context, interpreting unstructured text, or making judgment calls that go beyond simple if/then rules, you need an AI agent, not a workflow tool.

The integration does not exist. Internal systems, legacy databases, proprietary APIs with unusual authentication; these are common in larger businesses and rarely have pre-built connectors.

Reliability is critical. For workflows where a failure has serious consequences (missed financial filings, lost client data, compliance violations), the monitoring and error recovery capabilities of off-the-shelf platforms may not be sufficient.

The data volume is very large. Processing tens of thousands of records daily with complex transformation logic pushes these platforms to their limits, both in performance and in cost.

In these situations, a custom AI agent built specifically for your workflow provides the precision, reliability, and integration depth that general-purpose tools cannot match. For a deeper look at what AI agents are and how they differ from these platforms, see our plain-language guide to AI agents.

---

Decision framework

---

The bottom line

Zapier is the fastest path to a working automation for non-technical teams with straightforward workflows. Make provides a better balance of power and usability for complex workflows at a lower cost. n8n offers unmatched control and pricing for teams with technical capacity.

Start with the simplest tool that solves your problem. If you are connecting two SaaS apps with a simple trigger-action pattern, Zapier in five minutes beats n8n in five hours. If you are building multi-step workflows with branching logic and error handling, Make or n8n will save you from outgrowing your tool within months.

And if your automation needs go beyond what any of these platforms can handle, siasola builds custom AI agents designed for complex, business-critical workflows. We have built systems that integrate with CRMs, accounting platforms, project management tools, and custom databases, using these same platforms where they fit and custom code where they do not.

If you are not sure which approach is right for your situation, reach out for a free discovery call. We will give you an honest recommendation, even if that recommendation is "Zapier is all you need."

---

Related reading: Best AI automation tools for small businesses and How much does AI automation cost?