Head to head · Agents & automation · updated Oct 26, 2026
n8n vs Make
n8n scores 94 to Make's 76 on public evidence for AI workflow automation, and they rank #1 and #4 there. Both are free to start. Numbers below are the same public signals the ranking uses, recomputed nightly — nothing here is sponsored.
n8n
Fair-code workflow automation with native AI agent nodes and self-hosting.
+ Self-hostable with code nodes and LangChain-based AI nodes at a fraction of Zapier's cost.
− Sustainable Use licence is not OSI open source and the learning curve is steeper than Zapier.
Make
Visual automation platform with branching scenarios, AI agents, and detailed data mapping.
+ Visual scenario canvas handles complex branching and iteration better than Zapier.
− Operations-based billing and error handling confuse newcomers.
Side by side
public evidence| n8n | Make | |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence score / 100 | 94 | 76 |
| GitHub stars | 208,676 | closed source |
| Hacker News stories, 30d | 0 | 14 |
| Release-feed mentions, 30d | 0 | 247 |
| Last activity | 0 days ago | 0 days ago |
| Pricing | Free tier · Self-host free; Cloud from about $24/mo | Free tier · Core from $9/mo |
| Platforms | web, linux, mac, windows | web |
| Maker | n8n | Make (Celonis) |
Which one?
Pick n8n if
- you want the stronger public evidence (94 vs 76)
- you want open source — self-host it, read it, fork it
- you need it on linux, mac, windows
- a bigger GitHub community matters (208,676 vs 0 stars)
Best for technical users who want cheap, self-hosted automations.
Pick Make if
Visual scenario canvas handles complex branching and iteration better than Zapier.
Best for power users building complex multi-step automations.