n8n vs Make
If you are wiring apps together to move data and trigger actions, these two come up first. n8n leans developer: it is open-core, node-based, and you can self-host it and run your own code inline. Make is a hosted visual builder. You drag and connect steps in the browser and never touch a server.
| Dimension | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Node-based automation, code-friendly | Visual scenario builder, hosted |
| License | Open-core, self-hostable | Commercial, hosted |
| Where it runs | Self-host or their cloud | Their cloud |
| Custom code | Write real code inline in a node | Built-in functions, limited code steps |
| Integrations | Large library plus generic HTTP | Large library plus generic HTTP |
| Learning curve | Steeper, rewards technical users | Gentler, works for non-devs |
| Data control | Can run on your own infra | Data flows through their platform |
| Best for | Devs who want control and self-hosting | Teams who want a hosted builder fast |
You want to self-host, keep data on your own infrastructure, or drop into real code when no node exists. n8n fits teams with some technical depth who would rather own the runtime than rent it.
You want a working automation today without standing up a server, and your team is more operations than engineering. Make gives you a clean visual canvas and solid connectors, so non-developers can build and maintain scenarios themselves.
For a technical team I reach for n8n. Self-hosting and inline code mean you rarely hit a wall you cannot climb over. For a non-technical team that just needs things connected, Make is the faster, calmer path, and that is a fine choice. The common mistake is picking by integration count. Both cover the popular apps and both have generic HTTP for the rest. The real question is whether you want to own the runtime or rent it. Answer that first.