n8n vs Zapier vs Make: How to Choose in 2026
n8n, Zapier and Make compared on pricing model, integrations and AI features for 2026 — with a worked cost example so you know what you're actually paying for.
Quick answer
Non-technical team, need the widest app catalog and the fastest setup? Zapier. Budget-conscious, need branching logic without touching code? Make. Technical team that wants to self-host, control its data, and stop paying per step? n8n.
The number on the pricing page is the least useful part of this decision. What actually matters is how each platform counts usage — and that's where most comparisons stop short.
The billing model is the real difference
All three charge for "usage," but "usage" means something different on each platform:
- Zapier bills per task — every step (action) that runs inside a Zap is its own task. A 5-step Zap that fires 1,000 times is 5,000 tasks.
- Make bills per credit/operation — same idea, one credit per module that runs. A 5-module scenario × 1,000 runs ≈ 5,000 credits.
- n8n bills per execution — the entire workflow, no matter how many nodes it contains, counts as one execution. That same 5-step workflow running 1,000 times is 1,000 executions.
The practical effect: the more steps your workflow has, the more n8n and Make pull ahead of Zapier — not because they're inherently "cheaper," but because they're not charging you per step in the first place.
A worked example
Take a 5-step workflow (1 trigger + 4 actions) that runs 2,000 times a month:
| Platform | What's counted | Monthly volume | Cheapest plan that covers it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier | 5 tasks × 2,000 runs | 10,000 tasks | Professional, 10,000 tasks — $129/mo (annual) |
| Make | 5 credits × 2,000 runs | 10,000 credits | Core, 10,000 credits — $9/mo |
| n8n | 1 execution × 2,000 runs | 2,000 executions | Starter, 2,500 executions — €20/mo (~$22) |
This doesn't mean n8n and Make always cost a fraction of Zapier — for a genuinely one-step Zap, the billing model makes zero difference. It's complexity that makes the gap show up on the invoice.
n8n
Model: self-hosted (free, you only pay for the server) or cloud.
Cloud pricing (annual billing):
- Starter — €20/mo, 2,500 executions, 1 shared project
- Pro — €50/mo, 10,000 executions, 3 projects, admin roles
- Business — €667/mo, 40,000 executions, self-hosted deployment option, SSO/SAML
- Enterprise — custom pricing
Community Edition — free, open source, self-hosted. Real cost is just VPS rental, roughly $4-7/mo.
Strengths: custom JavaScript and Python nodes, full data control when self-hosted, billed by workflow rather than by step. n8n 2.0 (January 2026) added an AI Agent Tool Node for multi-agent orchestration, native LangChain integration across 70+ AI nodes, and vector database support for building RAG workflows directly inside n8n — see how to build an AI agent in n8n for a hands-on walkthrough.
Weaknesses: self-hosting needs basic server admin skills; the interface is less polished for non-technical users than Zapier's.
Zapier
Model: cloud only, no self-hosting option.
Pricing:
- Free — $0, 100 tasks/mo, two-step Zaps only
- Professional — from $19.99/mo (annual, 750 tasks), scales up with volume — 10,000 tasks runs $129/mo annual
- Team — from $69/mo (annual, 2,000 tasks), up to 25 users, shared Zaps
- Enterprise — custom pricing
Strengths: the largest integration catalog (8,000+ apps), the simplest interface for non-technical users, pre-built templates for common tasks. Zapier Agents — autonomous AI that can execute tasks across connected apps without a human building the workflow step by step — plus an AI Copilot that drafts Zaps from a plain-language description.
Weaknesses: per-task billing makes multi-step workflows noticeably more expensive than the alternatives; overage above your plan's limit costs up to 1.25x your base rate.
Make
Model: cloud only.
Pricing:
- Free — $0, 1,000 credits/mo
- Core — from $9/mo, 10,000 credits
- Pro — from $16/mo, 10,000 credits, priority execution
- Teams — from $29/mo, 10,000 credits, team features
- Enterprise — custom pricing
Strengths: the best price per unit of usage among the cloud platforms, a visual scenario builder that handles branching logic (routers, filters) more naturally than Zapier's linear Zaps, Make API access even on cheap tiers. Make AI Agents went generally available in early 2026, letting an AI module make routing decisions inside a scenario instead of just executing a fixed sequence.
Weaknesses: smaller integration catalog than Zapier (3,000+ vs 8,000+); AI features can burn through credits faster than standard modules, so check consumption separately before relying on them in production. Its error handling is also more granular than either competitor's, at the cost of a steeper learning curve — see Make scenario errors explained for what that actually looks like in practice.
Self-hosting n8n: when it's worth it
Self-hosting is the one structural difference that sets n8n apart — Zapier and Make exist only as hosted services, so this deserves its own breakdown rather than a footnote.
Self-hosting makes sense when:
- The data flowing through your workflows is sensitive (customer PII, financial records) and shouldn't leave your own infrastructure
- Your execution volume is high enough that a cloud plan would cost more than renting a server
- You need to reach an internal service that isn't exposed to the internet (behind a firewall, on a private network)
Stick with a hosted plan (n8n Cloud or another platform) when:
- Nobody on the team is available to own server updates and backups
- Your automation volume is small — the VPS rental plus your time would cost more than the Starter tier
- You need the fastest possible start with zero infrastructure decisions
In practice, deploying the Community Edition from a ready-made Docker image on Railway, Render, or a plain VPS takes 10-15 minutes even without deep server admin experience — it's a much smaller lift than standing up infrastructure from scratch, which is why the "self-hosting is too complicated" assumption is usually overstated.
Choosing in 5 minutes: a practical checklist
- Count the real number of steps in your typical scenario. 1-2 steps — the billing model barely matters, optimize for ease of use instead. 4+ steps running often — execution-based (n8n) or credit-based (Make) pricing pulls meaningfully ahead of task-based (Zapier).
- Check for a niche integration you actually need. Confirm that specific app exists in each platform's catalog before comparing headline numbers like "8,000+ vs 3,000+" — the aggregate count doesn't matter if your one critical app is missing.
- Ask if anyone on the team can own a server. No? Self-hosted n8n is off the table, and you're choosing between n8n Cloud, Zapier, and Make.
- Identify whether sensitive data is involved. If so, and self-hosting isn't an option for other reasons, check each platform's actual data handling policy rather than trusting a generic "GDPR compliant" badge.
- Start on the free tier of whatever passed steps 1-4, and test it against your real workload, not a hypothetical one — actual usage numbers are almost always different from the on-paper estimate.
Comparison table
| n8n | Zapier | Make | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | execution (whole workflow) | task (each step) | credit (each module) |
| Free tier | Community Edition (self-hosted, unlimited) | 100 tasks/mo | 1,000 credits/mo |
| Entry cloud price | €20/mo | $19.99/mo | $9/mo |
| Self-hosting | yes | no | no |
| Integration count | 400+ built-in, plus custom via HTTP/code | 8,000+ | 3,000+ |
| Custom code in workflows | yes (JS, Python) | limited (Code step) | limited (code module) |
| Best fit | technical teams, complex workflows, data control | fastest start with no technical background | mid-complexity at the lowest cost |
Mistakes people make choosing between them
Comparing only the headline price. $9 on Make and $19.99 on Zapier isn't "Zapier costs 2x more" — the units aren't the same (credit ≠ task). Look at the projected volume of your actual scenario, not an abstract "1,000 tasks."
Not budgeting for overage. Zapier charges up to 1.25x your base rate for tasks beyond your plan (capped at 3x your plan's limit) — teams often budget the base tier only and get surprised by a spike month (a sale, a campaign launch).
Defaulting to Zapier "because everyone knows it" for a genuinely complex, multi-step process. Past 3-4 steps running frequently, Zapier's cost can climb far faster than the alternatives — precisely because of per-task billing.
Not tracking AI feature usage separately. Both Zapier (AI by Zapier) and Make (AI Agents) can consume credits/tasks disproportionately to a regular step when their built-in AI features are involved — check the pricing docs before wiring an AI step into a production scenario.
FAQ
Is there a way to run automation for free, indefinitely?
Yes — self-hosted n8n Community Edition is free with no execution cap; you only pay for the server. Zapier's (100 tasks) and Make's (1,000 credits) free tiers are also permanent, but too narrow for real production use.
Can I move a workflow from one platform to another?
Not directly — scenario formats aren't compatible between platforms. You can carry over the logic (which triggers, which actions, in what order), but each step has to be rebuilt by hand in the new tool.
Which is easiest for someone with no technical background — n8n, Zapier, or Make?
Zapier. Its interface and terminology are built for non-technical users, and it has the largest template library for common tasks. Make is a step up in complexity because of its visual router/filter logic; n8n is the most technical of the three, though a basic workflow is still quick to learn — see connecting a Telegram bot to Google Sheets for a concrete example.
Can I use more than one of these at the same time?
Yes, and in practice this is common — Zapier for simple CRM integrations, for example, alongside self-hosted n8n for complex, sensitive-data workflows where server control matters.
Last fact-checked: August 18, 2026. Pricing and limits change — confirm against the official n8n, Zapier, and Make pricing pages before making a decision.