If you're choosing between Make and n8n for AI-driven workflows, the decision comes down to three things: how each platform prices usage, who hosts and maintains the system, and how much custom logic your workflows need. This guide walks through each so you can match the tool to your team instead of a marketing page.
What Make and n8n Are Actually Built For
Make is a visual, no-code workflow builder that runs entirely in the cloud. You drag modules onto a canvas, connect them, and configure each step through forms and dropdowns, so a marketer, ops person, or founder can assemble a working automation without touching code. When you do need custom logic, Make Code lets you write JavaScript or Python directly inside a scenario, so custom code is available, it's just not the default way of working.
n8n is also visual: you connect nodes on a canvas and configure each one. It supports writing expressions and custom JavaScript or Python inside nodes when built-in options don't cover what you need, and that code sits closer to the center of how people use the tool. It also gives you a choice Make doesn't: run it on n8n's cloud, or run it yourself on your own infrastructure [3].
Both platforms can call AI model APIs as a workflow step, feed outputs into other steps, and trigger on webhooks, schedules, or app events. The differences that matter most show up in pricing structure, who hosts the thing, and how much flexibility you need in the logic itself.
Pricing: Credits vs. Executions
Last checked: November 2026. Pricing pages change, so confirm current numbers before you commit to a plan.
The two platforms don't charge for the same unit of work, and that trips up a lot of buyers.
Make bills by credits. Most standard module operations consume one credit each, while built-in AI tools and other advanced features can use a variable number of credits depending on what they're doing [1]. If you use Make Code to run custom JavaScript or Python, Make's pricing page lists that at two credits per second of execution [1]. A workflow with ten standard steps typically runs around ten credits per execution. Make's free plan includes 1,000 credits a month, enough to test real workflows before committing to a paid tier [1].
n8n's cloud plans charge by monthly workflow executions rather than by step. A ten-step workflow and a two-step workflow each count as one execution, regardless of how much happens inside it [2]. n8n's cloud plans include unlimited workflows, users, and steps, so you're not paying more as you add teammates or build out additional automations [2]. Unlimited doesn't mean unrestricted, though: each plan tier still has its own limits, including concurrent executions, so a high-volume or high-concurrency setup may need a higher tier even though workflows and steps themselves aren't capped [2].
One more thing neither price page fully captures: if your workflow calls an AI model, the platform's plan price may not be your whole bill. Depending on how the connection is set up, you could be billed separately by the AI provider for usage, or that usage could be metered and folded into the platform's own charges. Treat AI model costs as their own line item rather than assuming they're included in the subscription.
To make the billing units concrete: picture a workflow that runs 1,000 times a month, with 10 standard, one-credit operations per run. On Make, that's roughly 10,000 credits for the month. On n8n, that's 1,000 workflow executions, since executions are counted per run rather than per step. These aren't comparable dollar figures, they're just the units each platform meters, and the example leaves out any additional AI model usage on top of the core workflow.
Hosting and Who Owns the Operational Work
Make is cloud-only. You don't manage servers, updates, or uptime, which suits teams without infrastructure staff who just want automations that work.
n8n gives you more choice here, and it's the biggest structural difference between the two tools. You can use n8n's cloud plans, paying for hosting and maintenance as part of the subscription, or self-host on your own infrastructure. Self-hosting isn't limited to the free tier either: n8n's Business plan is currently self-hosted only, while its Enterprise plan can be hosted by n8n or self-hosted, so the choice of where it runs depends on which plan you're on [2].
If you self-host without an Enterprise agreement, you're most likely running the Community Edition, which carries no licensing fee for its allowed uses under n8n's Sustainable Use License [4]. Running it still isn't free in the time or infrastructure sense. n8n's own hosting documentation lays out what self-hosting involves: deployment decisions, configuration, monitoring, logging, and keeping the instance updated [3]. That's ongoing work, usually falling on whoever on your team already handles DevOps or platform engineering.
n8n's Community License FAQ is specific about what the self-hosted Community Edition actually permits: consultants and agencies can build and maintain workflows on behalf of clients, as long as the client itself isn't the one building or editing those workflows [4]. That's different from standing up a hosted automation builder that external customers log into to build their own workflows. The license isn't written to cover that kind of multi-tenant service, so if you're an agency weighing self-hosted n8n as the backbone of a product you sell to multiple clients, read the license FAQ closely before building a business on that assumption [4].
It's also worth separating hosting control from compliance. Self-hosting gives you control over where your data sits and how the deployment is configured, but it doesn't make you compliant with anything by default. You still have to handle access controls, retention policies, logging, and general security practices yourself, and if your workflows call out to external AI services, that data leaves your infrastructure regardless of where n8n itself runs. Self-hosting is a deployment decision, not a compliance certification.
Integrations and Custom Logic
Make maintains a large catalog of prebuilt app integrations covering most of the SaaS tools a typical team already runs: CRMs, spreadsheets, email platforms, calendars, ad platforms, and more [1]. If the thing you want to connect is a mainstream SaaS product, there's a good chance Make already has a prebuilt module for it, and Make Code is there if you need to step outside the modules.
n8n leans on flexibility inside each node and treats custom code as a first-class option rather than an exception. If you're connecting to an internal API, a niche tool without an official integration, or you need to transform data in a way standard nodes don't support, n8n's support for writing code mid-workflow can get you there without fighting a no-code builder into submission.
This part of the decision doesn't split cleanly by team type. A team automating mostly mainstream SaaS tools may still prefer Make for speed, since there's no reason to write code when a module already exists. A team with one gnarly, custom integration may end up standing up n8n specifically for that workflow, because no amount of no-code polish fixes a missing integration.
Make vs. n8n at a Glance
FactorMaken8nHostingCloud onlyCloud, or self-hosted (Community Edition free to self-host; Business is self-hosted only; Enterprise can be hosted or self-hosted) [2][3][4]Pricing unitCredits per module action, variable for AI and code steps [1]Executions per workflow run; workflows, users, and steps unlimited, other plan limits (e.g. concurrency) apply [2]Free tier1,000 credits/month [1]Free self-hosted Community Edition, no licensing fee for allowed uses [4]IntegrationsLarge prebuilt app catalog, plus Make Code for custom JS/Python [1]Prebuilt nodes plus first-class custom code supportBest fitFast setup, mainstream SaaS stacksCustom logic, infrastructure control, agenciesOps overheadNone, handled by MakeNone on cloud, real work if self-hosted [3]
Which One Should You Choose?
If you want a cloud-hosted visual builder that gets common SaaS automations running fast, without anyone on your team touching infrastructure, start with Make.* Its credit-based pricing rewards lean workflow design, and the free plan gives you room to test real use cases before paying anything.
If you need tighter control over your logic and integrations, whether that means n8n Cloud or self-hosting when your team can actually own the operational work, n8n is the stronger fit.*
Either way, don't trust a price page in isolation. Map out your actual workflows, how often they'll run, and who's responsible for keeping them alive, then price both platforms against that reality instead of a marketing tier.
Sources
[1] Make Pricing
[2] n8n Pricing