Short answer: Zapier wins on ease and connector breadth, Make wins on visual power per dollar for complex branching, and n8n wins when you want to self-host, control cost at scale, or build custom code and AI steps into your flows. Pick by who will maintain it and how much it will run, not by comparing feature lists.
We build on all three for clients, so this is not a vendor pitch. It is the comparison we walk through on discovery calls.
The comparison at a glance
| Zapier | Make | n8n | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Per task (each action counts) | Per operation (each module run counts) | Per workflow execution on cloud; self-host has no per-run fee |
| Hosting | Cloud only | Cloud only | Cloud or self-hosted |
| Learning curve | Lowest | Moderate | Moderate to high |
| Connector catalog | Largest | Large | Large, plus anything with an HTTP API |
| Complex branching and data mapping | Basic | Strong, visual | Strong, code-friendly |
| Custom code steps | Limited | Limited | Native (JavaScript and Python) |
| AI and agent steps | Available | Available | Native AI and agent nodes |
| Best for | Non-technical teams, simple triggers | Complex visual flows on a budget | Volume, control, custom logic, AI-heavy work |
Pricing tiers and limits change often, so check each vendor's current pricing page (linked in the sources below) before deciding. The models above are the stable part.
Zapier: fastest to start, widest reach
Zapier's strength is that almost anything connects to it and a non-technical person can build a working automation in an afternoon. "New form submission, add to CRM, post to Slack" is a ten-minute job.
Where it strains: the per-task pricing gets expensive when a flow runs thousands of times a month, and multi-step logic with branches and loops gets awkward. If your automations are simple and your volume is modest, Zapier is usually the right first tool.
Make: the visual power tool
Make (formerly Integromat) gives you a visual canvas where each scenario shows its branches, routers, and data mapping. For flows with real logic, filtering, iterating over lists, error routes, it is more capable than Zapier at a lower price per run in most cases.
Where it strains: the canvas can become hard to reason about once a scenario grows large, and operations-based billing still adds up at volume. It rewards someone on the team who enjoys building and is willing to own it.
n8n: control, code, and AI
n8n is open, self-hostable, and built for people who are comfortable with a bit of code. You can run it on your own server with no per-run fees, drop JavaScript or Python into a step, call any HTTP API, and use its native AI and agent nodes to build flows that reason over data instead of just moving it.
Where it strains: someone has to run it. Self-hosting means updates, backups, and monitoring are yours. The cloud version removes that burden at a subscription cost. It is the wrong choice for a team with nobody technical and the right choice for a team that will outgrow per-task pricing or needs logic the other two cannot express.
How to actually choose: three questions
1. Who will maintain it? The subscription is rarely the real cost. The person who fixes the flow when an API changes is. Pick the tool that person can own. If that person does not exist, pick Zapier or hire the maintenance.
2. How many times a month will it run? Under a few thousand runs, the pricing model barely matters. Past that, per-task and per-operation billing starts to dominate, and n8n self-hosted or a custom build starts to win.
3. Do you need code or AI inside the flow? If the workflow needs to transform data in ways the visual builders cannot, call an internal API, or reason over records with a model, n8n is the natural fit.
Start simple, migrate one flow at a time
The mistake we see most is choosing the most powerful tool first. Most businesses should start on the simplest platform that survives their volume, prove the workflow is worth automating, then move individual flows to a more capable tool when they hit a wall. Migrating one flow is a day. Migrating a whole automation estate at once is a project.
When none of the three is the answer
Automation platforms are glue. When the thing you need is a system of record that does not exist yet, or the tool you are gluing around is itself the problem, custom software is the honest answer. We wrote out how we decide between the two on our AI automation vs custom software page.
FAQ
Which is cheapest?
At low volume they are close and the difference does not matter. At high volume, self-hosted n8n has no per-run cost, which usually makes it cheapest, as long as you count the time to run it.
Which is easiest for a non-technical team?
Zapier, clearly. Make is second. n8n assumes some comfort with code or a technical owner.
Can we mix them?
Yes, and many businesses do. Zapier for the simple stuff the office manager owns, n8n for the heavy flows an engineer owns. Just keep a list of what runs where.
Which is best for AI agents?
n8n has the most native support for AI and agent-style steps. The other two can call AI services, but building a multi-step agent is more natural in n8n or in custom code.
Do you pick one for us?
We recommend based on your team, volume, and logic, and we will say when the right answer is custom software instead. We work with all three, so there is no platform we are trying to sell you.
Ideas Realized builds automations on n8n, Zapier, and Make, and custom software when the platforms run out. If you are choosing, a 30-minute call is usually enough to narrow it to one.