How are Make (formerly Integromat) and n8n scored?

Make (formerly Integromat) has an AI score of 8.4/10 and n8n has an AI score of 8.5/10. Scores are based on category fit, feature coverage, pricing signals, public reception, and recency.

Make (formerly Integromat) vs n8n 2026 - Compared

Make (formerly Integromat)

n8n

WINNER n8n

This comparison between n8n and Make (formerly Integromat) is particularly fascinating because it highlights the diverge...

Make (formerly Integromat)

8.4 Excellent

API Integration Get Make (formerly Integromat) open_in_new

emoji_events WINNER

n8n

8.5 Excellent

API Integration Get n8n open_in_new

psychology AI Verdict

This comparison between n8n and Make (formerly Integromat) is particularly fascinating because it highlights the divergence in philosophy between open-source extensibility and polished, cloud-native visual design. n8n excels significantly as a developer-centric platform, offering self-hosting capabilities that ensure complete data sovereignty and a modular architecture that allows for the creation of custom nodes and deep JavaScript manipulation within workflows. Its strength lies in the ability to extend the core product itself, making it ideal for organizations that require bespoke integration logic running on their own infrastructure. Conversely, Make (formerly Integromat) establishes itself as the superior tool for visualizing complexity, utilizing an infinite canvas and flow-chart style builder that handles intricate branching logic, error trapping, and iterative data routing with intuitive elegance.

While n8n provides the raw power and control developers crave, Make (formerly Integromat) offers a more refined user experience for handling multi-system business logic without writing code. The trade-off is clear: n8n offers better long-term cost control and security through self-hosting, whereas Make (formerly Integromat) offers a lower barrier to entry for designing massively complex scenarios visually. Ultimately, n8n takes the win for technical teams requiring custom deployments, but Make (formerly Integromat) remains the undisputed king for visual workflow orchestration.

emoji_events Winner: n8n

verified Confidence: High

Ready to decide? Get n8n arrow_forward

thumbs_up_down Pros & Cons

Make (formerly Integromat)

check_circle Pros

Superior visual builder with an infinite canvas for complex scenarios
Advanced error handling and routing tools accessible without coding
Massive library of pre-built integrations and templates
Excellent data mapping and transformation visual tools

cancel Cons

Pricing can escalate quickly with high operation volumes
No self-hosted option available for on-premise security requirements
Limited extensibility compared to an open-source codebase

n8n

check_circle Pros

True self-hosting capability for full data control and security compliance
Fair-code licensing with a free tier and permissive usage rights
Highly extensible architecture allowing custom node development
Strong support for JavaScript/TypeScript for advanced data manipulation

cancel Cons

Steeper learning curve for non-technical users
Requires DevOps resources to maintain and scale the self-hosted instance
Visual interface, while functional, is less polished than competitors

compare Feature Comparison

Feature	Make (formerly Integromat)	n8n
Deployment Model	Cloud-only (SaaS) managed by Make	Self-hosted (Docker, npm, Kubernetes) or Cloud
Workflow Editor	Infinite canvas with color-coded flow paths	Node-based editor with code view options
Customization	Use Apps/Modules; limited external code execution	Build custom nodes and modify source code
Data Mapping	Visual mapping with advanced functions and aggregators	Functional but relies more on expressions
Logic Handling	Visual routers, filters, and iterators on the canvas	Utilizes IF/ELSE nodes and JavaScript logic
Community Ecosystem	Template marketplace and community forum	Open-source community contributions and documentation

payments Pricing

Make (formerly Integromat)

Free tier available; Paid plans start at ~$9/month (Core) scaling with operations

Good Value

n8n

Free (Self-hosted Open Source) or ~$20-50/month per user (Cloud Enterprise)

Excellent Value

difference Key Differences

Make (formerly Integromat) n8n

Make (formerly Integromat) focuses on a superior visual paradigm. Its infinite canvas allows users to map out extremely complex scenarios involving multiple apps and intricate logic paths visually, making it easier to understand and manage large-scale business processes.

Core Strength

n8n thrives on its open-source nature and code-centric flexibility. It empowers developers to write custom JavaScript functions, host the platform on their own servers for strict data compliance, and modify the source code to fit specific architectural needs.

Make (formerly Integromat) provides a managed cloud environment with robust processing capabilities, generally offering higher out-of-the-box throughput and stability for users who do not want to manage their own servers.

Performance

Performance in n8n is largely dependent on the user's infrastructure. Since it is self-hosted, users can scale resources vertically or horizontally to handle high loads, though this requires manual DevOps effort.

Make (formerly Integromat) operates on a volume-based pricing model that can become expensive as data processing needs grow, but the predictable monthly cost includes maintenance, hosting, and updates.

Value for Money

n8n offers potentially unbeatable value for money because its open-source version is free to use forever, with enterprise features requiring a paid license. The Total Cost of Ownership is low for teams with existing server infrastructure.

Make (formerly Integromat) is designed with a lower barrier to entry, allowing power users to build complex logic through intuitive drag-and-drop actions. Its visual data mapping tools are generally considered more user-friendly than those of n8n.

Ease of Use

n8n has a steeper learning curve for non-technical users. While it has a visual editor, leveraging its full power often requires coding knowledge in JavaScript or TypeScript, making it less accessible to citizen integrators.

Ideal for digital marketers, operations managers, and SMBs that need to connect numerous SaaS applications quickly and visualize complex data pipelines without managing servers.

Best For

Ideal for software developers, CTOs, and technical teams who prioritize data privacy, need custom API integrations, or want to embed automation logic directly into their own tech stack.

help When to Choose

Make (formerly Integromat)

If you need to visualize extremely complex multi-step workflows
If you prefer a managed service with zero server maintenance
If you require robust error handling and data routing without coding

n8n

If you prioritize data sovereignty and need to self-host your automation infrastructure
If you are a developer who wants to extend the platform with custom code or nodes
If you want to avoid escalating SaaS costs by leveraging your own server hardware

description Overview

Make (formerly Integromat)

Make is highly regarded by power users and developers for its unparalleled visual workflow builder. It operates on a scenario-based model, allowing users to map out complex, multi-step processes with incredible granularity. Its ability to handle data routing, error trapping, and iterative loops within a single visual canvas makes it superior for intricate, multi-system business logic. It excels wh...

n8n

n8n is a rapidly growing open-source workflow automation platform gaining popularity for its flexibility and developer-friendliness. It offers a visual workflow editor alongside a powerful JavaScript-based execution engine, allowing for both citizen integrators and experienced developers to build complex integrations. Its self-hosted option provides greater control over data and security. The act...