n8n vs Zapier vs Make: Workflow Automation for a Small Business
Once a small business has more than a couple of SaaS tools, someone eventually asks “can we make X automatically create a Y in Z?” — a new lead in a form should open a CRM record, a paid invoice should post to accounting, a support ticket should ping a chat channel. Zapier popularized “if this app does that, do this” automation years ago; Make and n8n are the two names that come up most as alternatives, one on pricing and one on self-hosting.
Search intent
Someone searching “n8n vs Zapier vs Make” already knows they want to connect SaaS tools without custom code, and is weighing a self-hosted, more technical option (n8n) against two hosted no-code platforms (Zapier, Make) — usually because Zapier’s task-based pricing got expensive, or because they want workflow logic (branching, loops, error handling) that Zapier’s simpler model doesn’t do well.
Quick take
- Want the largest app-integration library and the most polished no-code builder, and don’t mind paying more per task: Zapier
- Want similar no-code ease with a much cheaper credit-based model and a visual, branching workflow canvas: Make
- Want to self-host, avoid recurring per-task fees entirely, and don’t mind a steeper setup curve: n8n
The three options
Zapier is the oldest and most established of the three, with the largest library of pre-built app integrations (7,000+) and the simplest builder — a linear trigger-then-action “Zap.” That simplicity is also its limit: complex branching logic requires stacking Paths and Filters rather than a true visual flow. Pricing is task-based (each action in a Zap counts as a task): the Free plan includes 100 tasks/month, Professional starts around $49/month (2,000 tasks, annual billing) and scales past $250/month for higher task volumes, and Team/Enterprise tiers add shared workspaces and admin controls at custom pricing. For a small business running several always-on automations, task counts add up faster than the sticker price suggests.
Make (formerly Integromat) uses a visual, node-based canvas where you can see branching and looping logic laid out spatially, which most users find easier to debug than Zapier’s linear Zap list once workflows get complex. Pricing is credit-based rather than task-based (an operation, not a full run, consumes a credit): Free includes up to 1,000 credits/month and 2 active scenarios, Core is roughly $9/month for 10,000 credits, Pro around $16/month, and Teams around $29/month for the same credit tier with added collaboration features — all cheaper per-operation than Zapier’s task pricing at comparable volume, confirmed on make.com/pricing.
n8n is the only self-hostable option of the three, and the only one with no recurring cost if you run it yourself: the self-hosted Community Edition is free to install on your own server or homelab box, with a visual workflow canvas that supports branching, loops, and custom JavaScript/Python code nodes for logic the no-code tools can’t express. It’s released under n8n’s own Sustainable Use License (“fair-code,” not an OSI-approved open-source license) — in practice this means free self-hosted use for running your own business’s automations, but you can’t resell n8n itself as a hosted service to third parties. A hosted n8n Cloud option also exists (Starter around €20/month for 2,500 executions, Pro around €50/month for 10,000 executions) for teams that want the same workflow engine without managing a server.
Cost compared (2026)
| Zapier | Make | n8n (self-hosted) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free tier | 100 tasks/month | 1,000 credits/month, 2 active scenarios | Unlimited — free forever, self-hosted |
| Entry paid tier | ~$49/month (2,000 tasks, annual) | ~$9/month (10,000 credits) | $0 (your own server’s cost only) |
| Pricing unit | Per task (per action executed) | Per operation (credits) | N/A — no usage metering on self-hosted |
| Licensing | Proprietary, hosted only | Proprietary, hosted only | Sustainable Use License (fair-code); n8n Cloud also available |
n8n’s self-hosted cost advantage only holds if you’re comfortable running and maintaining a server — Zapier and Make both include the infrastructure, uptime, and support that a self-hosted setup makes your responsibility.
Which one should you actually pick?
- Already have a homelab or small-office server running Docker and want automation with zero recurring SaaS fee: n8n, self-hosted — see Docker Compose vs Kubernetes if you haven’t picked a container-orchestration approach yet.
- Want the largest integration library and the most hand-holding, and the budget supports it: Zapier.
- Want Zapier-like ease of use but complex branching logic and a materially lower per-operation cost: Make.
- Running n8n or another self-hosted app already and want a web UI to manage the containers: see Portainer vs Yacht vs Dockge.
- Need to expose a self-hosted n8n instance securely on your own domain: Caddy vs Nginx Proxy Manager covers the reverse-proxy step.
- Automating invoice creation as part of a workflow: Invoice Ninja vs Wave vs QuickBooks Simple Start — all three have APIs any of these tools can call.
- Triggering a newsletter send as part of a workflow: see Listmonk vs Mailchimp vs Brevo — all three expose an API these automation tools can call.
- Automating what happens after a booking is made: see Cal.com vs Calendly vs Acuity Scheduling — pushing a new booking into a CRM entry or invoice draft is a common workflow trigger.
VPS/hosting referral placeholder — swap for a real hosting/VPS affiliate link once a program is confirmed, for readers who want to self-host n8n on a cheap VPS rather than existing homelab hardware.
Bottom line
Zapier and Make are both hosted, no-setup options that differ mainly on integration breadth versus price-per-operation — Make is meaningfully cheaper at comparable volume. n8n is the only free-to-run option of the three, but that’s a trade for the ongoing work of self-hosting, and its fair-code license means it’s for running your own automations, not reselling as a service.