Stack consolidation · Deep analysis
Make and n8n: SaaS Convenience vs Self-Hosted Cost
Make and n8n have nearly identical visual workflow paradigms. The split is hosting model: Make is SaaS with per-operation pricing; n8n self-host eliminates per-execution cost entirely. Running both is paying for SaaS while having self-host capacity available.
Workflow automation tooling overlap is a top-5 silent waste pattern across 100k+ scans.
Which one to keep — by team profile
| Under ~500 users (SMB / mid-market) | Make. Without DevOps capacity, Make's SaaS model is lower friction. n8n cloud narrows the gap but Make's catalog is bigger. |
|---|---|
| Enterprise (500+ users, multi-cloud) | n8n. Self-hosting eliminates per-task pricing at scale and satisfies compliance requirements (data residency, SOC2, HIPAA). |
| Data-led / warehouse-anchored | n8n. Code-extensible JS nodes, better webhook handling, stronger API for engineering-led automation pipelines. |
| AI-native / greenfield | n8n. AI agent nodes ship faster than Make's AI features. |
What they both do (why they overlap)
- Visual workflow automation
- Trigger-based multi-step actions
- Webhook + HTTP integration
- Scheduled workflows
- Error handling + retries
- Workflow sharing + collaboration
What's unique to each
| Make· 60/100 | n8n· 60/100 |
|---|---|
| Larger integration catalog (~1,500 vs ~400 native) | Self-hostable — no per-execution cost on your infrastructure |
| Pure SaaS — no infrastructure to manage | Fair-code license — free for self-host |
| Mature visual workflow builder with branching | JavaScript code nodes for custom logic inline |
| Per-operation pricing rewards efficient design | Active open-source community |
| More polished UX for non-technical users | Better fit for compliance-heavy industries |
The cost reality nobody puts on the comparison chart
Make Pro: $16-$99/mo for 10K-1M operations. n8n self-host: ~$5-50/mo for VPS. n8n cloud: $20-$50/mo for SMB execution counts.
At 100K executions/mo: Make ~$30/mo, n8n self-host ~$20/mo. Comparable cost at SMB scale; n8n self-host pulls ahead at enterprise volume.
Running both: $50-$150/mo combined for capability one tool covers. The honest split: either commit to SaaS (Make) or commit to self-host (n8n). Don't run both.
When keeping both is defensible (rare)
Specific Make-only integrations that n8n can't replicate via HTTP. Audit annually — n8n catalog expands.
How StackScan sees this overlap
Make + n8n is usually a half-finished migration: team evaluating n8n self-host while keeping Make for active workflows. The right answer is committing to one and migrating the rest.
StackScan flags this overlap when both tools are present. Recovery: $1K-$5K/yr at small scale.
Knowledge base links
Related overlap decisions
- Make and Zapier — $600/yr modeled
- Make and Workato — $2.4K/yr modeled
- n8n and Zapier — $960/yr modeled
FAQ
- Is n8n's catalog really that much smaller than Make's?
- Yes — Make has ~1,500 native integrations, n8n has ~400. The gap closes via HTTP nodes (n8n can connect to anything with an API), but native integrations are faster to set up.
- Does n8n require DevOps to run?
- Self-host: yes, basic DevOps (Docker, VPS management). n8n cloud: no, but gives up the cost advantage at scale.
- What about Zapier instead of either?
- Different positioning. Zapier has 6,000+ integrations but is more expensive at volume due to per-task pricing. Make/n8n are both stronger for cost-conscious teams.
- Can we self-host Make?
- No — Make is SaaS only. If self-hosting matters, n8n is the only credible visual-workflow option.
- Migration disruption?
- 2-4 weeks to migrate workflows between them. Visual builders have similar paradigms but rebuilding manually is faster than trying to convert.
Canonical URL: https://stackswap.ai/overlap/make-and-n8n