At a Glance — n8n vs Make
- Billing unit: n8n counts one execution per workflow run, whatever the number of steps. Make counts one credit per module action.
- Entry price: Make Core is $9 a month for 10,000 credits. n8n Starter is €20 a month (billed annually) for 2,500 executions.
- Hosting: n8n has a free self-hosted Community Edition plus paid cloud plans. Make is a hosted service.
- Integrations: Make lists 3,000+ apps; n8n lists 2,329 integrations. Both can call any REST API directly.
- Code: both run JavaScript and Python. In Make it needs a paid plan and costs credits; in n8n it is a normal node.
- Pick n8n if you need self-hosting, run multi-step or code-heavy workflows, or expect high volume. Pick Make if you want hosted and visual, and your workflows are small or your team is non-technical.
n8n or Make: the short answer
n8n vs Make comes down to three things: who builds the workflows, where they run, and how your usage is counted. If developers or technically minded operators build them, you want them on your own infrastructure, or they have many steps each, n8n usually fits better and costs less at volume. If a non-technical team builds them in a browser, you want nothing to host, and the workflows are short, Make is simpler and its entry plans are cheaper. We build on n8n, so we lean that way, which is why the figures here come straight from each vendor's published pages and are linked at the end.
n8n vs Make pricing, from the vendors' own pages
Prices change, so treat this as a snapshot from October 8, 2026 and check the live pages. n8n lists prices in euros and "billed annually"; Make lists prices in dollars and offers a discount for annual billing.
| Plan | Price | Included usage | Other limits shown |
|---|---|---|---|
| n8n Community Edition | Free | Self-hosted; you pay for your own server | No per-execution fee |
| n8n Starter (cloud) | €20 / month, billed annually | 2,500 workflow executions | 5 concurrent executions |
| n8n Pro (cloud) | €50 / month, billed annually | 10,000 workflow executions | 20–50 concurrent executions |
| n8n Business | €667 / month, billed annually | 40,000 workflow executions | 200+ concurrent; listed as self-hosted |
| Make Free | $0 | 1,000 credits / month | 2 active scenarios, 15-minute minimum interval, 5-minute max run |
| Make Core | $9 / month | 10,000 credits / month | Unlimited scenarios, 1-minute interval, 40-minute max run |
| Make Pro | $16 / month | 10,000 credits / month (base) | Same limits; larger files (250 MB) |
| Make Teams | $29 / month | 10,000 credits / month (base) | Same limits; larger files (500 MB) |
Both vendors also sell Enterprise plans with custom pricing. On Make, the figures above are the base tier: buying more credits raises the price, and the exact price for a given volume comes from Make's pricing calculator, so we don't quote one here.
Executions vs credits: how each tool counts usage
This is where most n8n vs Make cost comparisons go wrong. According to n8n, "an execution is a single run of your entire workflow. It doesn't matter how many steps are in the workflow or how much data it processes." According to Make, "1 operation equals 1 credit" for non-AI apps: each module action in a scenario uses a credit.
A worked example, using those two definitions:
- A workflow with 5 steps runs 10,000 times a month.
- In n8n: that is 10,000 executions, which fits the 10,000 included in Pro.
- In Make: that is roughly 50,000 credits if all five steps are module actions, five times the 10,000 included in the base tier, so you would buy more credits.
The more steps a workflow has, the bigger the gap. For a one-step automation the two count the same, and Make's lower entry price wins. If you self-host n8n, there is no execution fee at all, only the cost of the server and the time to run it.
Two Make details that change the bill: some of Make's AI Content Extractor modules use 2 or 10 credits per operation, and the Code app uses two credits for every second of code it runs (more on that below).
Hosting and data control
n8n offers a free self-hosted Community Edition on GitHub as well as paid cloud plans, so you can keep workflow data on your own infrastructure. That matters when a data-residency or compliance policy says where data can go. Make is sold as a hosted service, so your workflow data runs on Make's platform.
Self-hosting isn't free of work: you handle upgrades, backups and monitoring. If nobody on your team wants that job, a cloud plan on either tool is the easier route.
Integrations and connectors
On its pricing and integration pages, Make lists 3,000+ pre-built apps and n8n lists 2,329 integrations (October 8, 2026). The two numbers aren't measured the same way, so don't treat 3,000 vs 2,329 as a score. What matters is whether the specific apps you use are covered, and whether you're comfortable calling an API directly when one isn't: both tools can call any REST API (n8n's HTTP Request node, Make's HTTP app), but that takes more setup than a ready-made connector.
Custom code in n8n and Make
Both can run code, with different limits:
- n8n: the Code node supports JavaScript and Python. On n8n Cloud, the Python option can't import libraries; self-hosted instances can import them if they are allowed in the runner configuration.
- Make: the Code app supports JavaScript and Python on paid plans only. It has a 30-second maximum execution time on standard plans (300 seconds on Enterprise) and uses two credits for every second the code runs.
If your workflows need heavier data transformation, the practical difference is cost and runtime: in n8n code is an ordinary node, while in Make it is metered and time-limited.
When to use n8n and when to use Make
Choose n8n when
- You need to self-host, or must keep data on your own infrastructure.
- Workflows have many steps, so per-run counting saves money.
- You run code inside workflows regularly.
- Developers or technical operators will build and maintain the workflows. Our n8n error handling guide shows what production reliability involves.
Choose Make when
- You want a hosted tool with nothing to set up or maintain.
- Your automations are short, so the lower entry price and per-module credits work in your favor.
- A non-technical team will build in a visual editor.
- You need an app that only has a ready-made Make connector.
Comparing a third tool? See n8n vs Zapier and, for NetSuite-centred integration work, n8n vs Celigo.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is n8n cheaper than Make? It depends on the workflow. n8n counts one execution per run however many steps there are, and Make counts a credit per module action. For one- or two-step automations at low volume, Make's entry plans are cheaper than n8n Cloud. For multi-step workflows at volume, n8n costs less, and a self-hosted Community Edition removes the per-execution fee.
What counts as an execution in n8n? A single run of an entire workflow, regardless of how many steps it has or how much data it processes.
Can you self-host Make? Make is sold as a hosted service. n8n offers a free self-hosted Community Edition as well as paid cloud plans.
Does Make support custom code like n8n? Yes, through the Code app (JavaScript and Python) on paid plans, with a 30-second limit on standard plans and two credits per second of runtime. n8n's Code node also supports JavaScript and Python.
How many integrations do n8n and Make have? As of October 8, 2026, n8n lists 2,329 integrations and Make lists more than 3,000 apps. They count differently, so check the apps you need.
Sources
- n8n pricing and n8n integrations
- n8n Code node documentation
- Make pricing and Make integrations
- How Make counts credits and the Make Code app
Entech Solutions is an n8n implementation agency. If you're deciding between the two for a real project, see our n8n automation services or get in touch and we'll give you an honest answer, including when Make is the better choice. For what n8n itself costs on each plan, see n8n pricing in 2026.