n8n vs Make (Integromat): Pricing, Self-Hosting & Which Automation Tool to Choose
n8n and Make (formerly Integromat) are the two automation platforms most SEO and ops teams shortlist against Zapier — but they are built on opposite philosophies. n8n is open-source and self-hostable, billed by whole workflow runs. Make is a polished cloud tool billed by the module call. That single billing difference, more than any feature checklist, is what decides your monthly invoice and which tool actually fits your team.
n8n vs Make at a glance
Before the detail, here is the head-to-head that matters most for anyone automating repetitive SEO or marketing work at volume.
| Factor | n8n | Make (Integromat) |
|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Per workflow execution (a full run, any number of steps) | Per credit / operation (one per module call) |
| Entry cloud price | ~€20/mo (Starter, 2,500 executions, annual) | ~$12/mo (Core, 10,000 credits, annual) |
| Free tier | Self-hosted Community Edition — unlimited runs, pay only for your server | 1,000 credits/mo, 2 active scenarios |
| Self-hosting | Yes — Docker on a $5–7/mo VPS, full data control | No — cloud only |
| Custom code | JavaScript & Python nodes, custom nodes, raw HTTP | Limited scripting; strong pre-built modules |
| Native integrations | 500+ nodes, community-extendable | 1,500+ app connectors |
| Best for | Developers, agencies, high-volume or private-data workflows | Non-technical teams wanting fast, visual automations |
The one difference that decides your bill: executions vs credits
Most comparisons list features side by side and stop there. The number that actually shows up on your invoice is the billing unit, and n8n and Make count in completely different ways.
How n8n counts
n8n bills per workflow execution. One run of a workflow is one execution, whether that workflow has three steps or forty. A rank-tracking workflow that pulls 100 keywords, transforms the data, and writes to Google Sheets still counts as a single execution. On self-hosted n8n (the free Community Edition), executions are effectively unlimited — you are only paying for the small server it runs on.
How Make counts
Make bills per credit — the unit it renamed from “operations” in 2026 — and you spend one credit per module call. A scenario with twenty modules burns twenty credits every time it runs. Loop over 100 items through five modules and you can spend 500 credits in a single run. The visual builder makes this easy to overlook until the counter empties mid-month.
A worked example at scale
Say you run a daily SEO audit that touches 200 URLs through roughly 10 processing steps. On Make that is on the order of 2,000 credits per run — around 60,000 a month — pushing you well past the Core allowance into higher tiers or credit top-ups. On n8n Cloud that is 30 executions a month against a 2,500-execution Starter plan; on self-hosted n8n it costs nothing beyond the VPS. This is why teams automating heavy, multi-step SEO pipelines tend to drift toward n8n as volume grows, a pattern echoed in our practitioner’s stack of the best SEO automation tools.
2026 pricing, side by side
n8n pricing
n8n Cloud starts at roughly €20/month (Starter) for 2,500 executions on annual billing, with the Pro tier around €50/month for 10,000 executions. Every cloud plan now includes unlimited workflows and unlimited users, so you are never charged per seat. The self-hosted Community Edition is free software; a typical Docker deployment on a $5–7/month VPS gives you unlimited executions and every integration, which is the cheapest serious automation setup available. Higher self-hosted and enterprise tiers add SSO, log streaming, and support.
Make pricing
Make offers a genuinely useful free tier (1,000 credits/month, two active scenarios), then Core at about $12/month for 10,000 credits with unlimited scenarios, Pro near $21/month with priority execution and full log search, and Teams around $38/month for roles and shared templates. Annual billing shaves roughly 15% off. The headline number looks low, but remember every module call spends a credit, so real cost tracks workflow complexity, not just plan choice.
Self-hosting and data control: n8n’s clear edge
Make is cloud-only. Your data flows through Make’s infrastructure, which is fine for most marketing use cases but a non-starter for teams with strict data-residency, compliance, or client-confidentiality requirements. n8n can be deployed on your own servers or private cloud, keeping API keys, scraped data, and client information entirely inside your perimeter. For agencies handling multiple clients’ Search Console and analytics data, that control is often the deciding factor — and it pairs well with the resilience patterns in our guide to building scalable workflows in n8n.
Ease of use and connector breadth: Make’s clear edge
Where n8n asks you to think a little like a developer, Make is built for speed with zero code. Its drag-and-drop scenario editor, hundreds of ready-made templates, and catalog of over 1,500 app connectors mean a marketer can wire up a lead-notification or content-publishing flow in an afternoon. The visual mapping of data between modules is more forgiving for beginners than n8n’s expression syntax. If your automations are mostly linear “when X happens, do Y in these popular SaaS apps,” Make gets you there faster with less to maintain.
Custom code and complex logic
For branching, loops, and genuinely custom behavior, n8n pulls ahead. It exposes JavaScript and Python code nodes, lets you build your own custom nodes, and gives raw HTTP access to any API, alongside proper try/catch error branches and retry logic. That makes it the natural choice for orchestrating scrapers, merging data from several SEO APIs, or triggering internal dashboards — the kind of pipeline we walk through in n8n vs Make specifically for SEO automation. Make supports basic custom logic and even some inline functions, but the moment a workflow needs unusual data manipulation or a proprietary integration, its no-code ceiling starts to show.
Which one should you choose?
The honest answer is that they serve different buyers, so match the tool to the job rather than chasing a single “winner”:
- Choose Make if your team is non-technical, your automations connect mainstream SaaS apps in fairly linear flows, and you value shipping this week over squeezing cost. It is the faster on-ramp, full stop.
- Choose n8n if you run high-volume or multi-step workflows, need self-hosting for data control, want custom code and real error handling, or simply want predictable cost as you scale. For most SEO teams automating at volume, this is the durable pick.
- Choose neither exclusively if you can help it — plenty of teams prototype in Make and graduate the heavy, repetitive pipelines to self-hosted n8n once the credit math turns against them.
If your workloads are trending toward volume and control, it is worth starting a self-hosted trial: explore the n8n official site and browse SEOAutomationClub for workflow templates you can adapt.
Frequently asked questions
Is n8n cheaper than Make?
For simple, low-volume automations the headline prices are close, and Make’s free tier is generous. For multi-step or high-volume workflows n8n is usually much cheaper, because it bills per whole execution (and self-hosted is effectively unlimited) while Make spends a credit for every module call in every run.
What is the difference between n8n executions and Make credits?
An n8n execution is one full run of a workflow regardless of how many steps it contains. A Make credit (formerly an “operation”) is consumed per module call, so a run with many modules or loops spends many credits.
Can I self-host Make like n8n?
No. Make is a cloud-only platform. If self-hosting or on-premises deployment is a requirement — for compliance or data control — n8n is the option, via Docker on your own server.
Which is easier for non-developers?
Make. Its visual builder, large template library, and 1,500+ connectors make it the gentler starting point for people who don’t want to write code.
Does n8n or Make have more integrations?
Make lists more native connectors (1,500+) than n8n (500+ nodes). However, n8n’s raw HTTP node and custom-node system let it connect to virtually any API, so its practical reach is broader for technical teams.
