The three most popular workflow automation platforms go head-to-head. We tested all three hands-on across six criteria to help you pick the right one for your team.
| Feature | Make.com | Zapier | n8n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2012 | 2011 | 2019 |
| Code Required | Low-Code | No-Code | Low-Code |
| Free Tier | 1,000 credits/mo | 100 tasks/mo | Unlimited (self-hosted) |
| Entry Paid Price | $10.59/mo | $29.99/mo | $20/mo (cloud) |
| Integrations | 3,000+ | 8,500+ | 700+ |
| G2 Score | 4.7/5 | 4.5/5 | 4.8/5 |
| Trustpilot | — | 1.4/5 | 3.2/5 |
| Self-Hosting | No | No | Yes (free) |
| Open Source | No | No | Yes (fair-code) |
| AI Models | GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini | GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini | GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, Llama, Mistral, DeepSeek |
| Affiliate Commission | 35% / 12mo | None | 30% / 12mo |
| Best For | Visual builders, agencies | Beginners, niche apps | Developers, self-hosters |
Make.com wins here with its flowchart-style visual canvas. You see your entire automation as a directed graph, with clear data flow between nodes. Branching, merging, and error-handling paths are visually distinct. This approach is particularly powerful for complex, multi-path workflows.
Zapier uses a linear, step-by-step builder that's the easiest to learn but limits visibility. You add steps sequentially, and while branching (Paths) is available on paid plans, the linear view makes it harder to understand complex workflows at a glance.
n8n also uses a visual canvas (similar to Make.com) but adds the ability to drop into JavaScript or Python code at any node. For developers, this is the most powerful builder; for non-technical users, it's the most overwhelming.
This is where the three platforms diverge most dramatically. Consider a scenario with 10,000 monthly automation executions:
The gap widens further at enterprise scale. Organizations running 100,000+ monthly executions report Zapier costs of $2,000-3,000+/month, while n8n remains at infrastructure cost only and Make.com's Teams plan at $34.12/month covers significantly more capacity.
n8n leads in AI capability depth with full agent orchestration, RAG, memory, and MCP support. It's the closest to a dedicated AI development platform among the three.
Zapier leads in AI accessibility with AI Copilot for natural-language workflow creation and the MCP protocol giving AI agents access to 30,000+ actions. It's investing in AI as infrastructure more than as a feature.
Make.com takes a practical middle ground with AI modules for GPT-4o, Claude, and Gemini that drop cleanly into visual scenarios. Not as deep as n8n, not as broad as Zapier, but well-integrated and immediately useful.
Zapier's 8,500+ integrations are unassailable in breadth. Make.com's 3,000+ cover the vast majority of mainstream apps with often deeper trigger/action support. n8n's 700+ are supplemented by the ability to connect to any API via code — which matters more to technical users than pre-built integration count.
Visual flowchart-style scenario builder with the most granular data-transformation control of any no-code platform; significantly cheaper than Zapier at scale
Largest app integration library (8,500+) and brand recognition; first-mover with MCP and AI agent orchestration layered on top of the world's best-known automation brand
Only major automation platform with a truly free self-hosted option and full code extensibility; developer-first approach with AI-native agent orchestration built in since 2023
If you want our single recommendation: Start with Make.com. It offers the best balance of power, usability, and pricing for most teams. The visual builder is genuinely best-in-class, the AI modules are practical, and the pricing won't surprise you.
Switch to n8n if you outgrow Make's capabilities, need self-hosting, or want to build advanced AI agents. Switch to Zapier only if you need a specific integration that Make doesn't support.