n8n vs Zapier vs Make: choosing an automation platform

Zapier suits simple connections between supported applications at low volume. Make handles more complex branching logic at lower per-task cost. n8n handles the most complex logic, can be self-hosted when data cannot leave your infrastructure, and is the only one of the three where per-task pricing does not eventually become the deciding factor.

We build on all three. The choice is usually determined by three things: how complex the logic is, how many times it runs, and whether the data can leave your infrastructure.

The comparison

When Zapier is the right answer

When the workflow is genuinely simple, both applications are in the catalog, and it runs a few hundred times a month. Zapier's catalog is the largest of the three and the setup cost is close to zero.

It stops being the right answer at volume. Per-task pricing that is trivial at 500 runs a month is a meaningful line item at 50,000, and the price does not fall as you scale.

When Make is the right answer

When the logic needs real branching, error handling or iteration over a list, and per-operation cost still works at your volume. Make's visual builder handles complexity that Zapier's linear model cannot express without splitting into several Zaps.

It stops being the right answer when you need data to stay inside your infrastructure, or when the logic outgrows what a visual builder can express clearly.

When n8n is the right answer

Three situations:

Data residency. n8n can be self-hosted, so data never leaves your infrastructure. For clients in regulated sectors, or in jurisdictions with data localisation requirements, this frequently decides the question on its own.

Volume. Self-hosted n8n has no per-task charge. The cost is the server and the engineering time to run it, which becomes the cheaper option at a predictable crossover point.

Complexity. Full JavaScript and Python inside a workflow, arbitrary HTTP, and workflows stored as JSON so they can live in version control and go through code review like anything else.

The trade-off is real: self-hosting means you now operate a service. Someone has to patch it, monitor it and restore it. That is not free, and we say so before recommending it.

When none of them is the right answer

If the workflow is business-critical, runs constantly, and has complex state, a custom service is usually better than any of the three. Automation platforms are excellent at connecting systems and poor at being the system.

The signal is usually a workflow that has grown to thirty or forty nodes with several error paths. At that point you have written an application in a visual editor, without tests, without a debugger, and without a way to review a change before it goes live.

How we decide

We start with the simplest tool that can express the logic, and we look at volume before committing. Migration between platforms is more work than choosing correctly at the start, and the volume figure — how many times will this actually run — is the one clients most often underestimate.