Make, Zapier and n8n each solve different problems. Choosing the wrong platform wastes months of setup time. This guide compares the three major automation platforms and helps you select the right one for your specific needs.
Book a free consultationMake (formerly Integromat), Zapier and n8n look interchangeable from their marketing pages — "connect app A to app B" — but each is built on a different architectural bet, and that bet decides what breaks once your automation stops being a single two-step trigger. Zapier is optimized for breadth and simplicity: a linear trigger-action chain across the widest app directory on the market. Make replaces the linear chain with a visual scenario canvas that supports branching routers, iterators, aggregators and built-in error handling. n8n goes further still — it is open-source, can be self-hosted on your own infrastructure, and lets you drop raw JavaScript or Python into any node once the built-in modules run out of road. Choosing the wrong one of the three rarely fails loudly on day one; it fails quietly, three months in, when the workflow you actually need does not fit the tool you already committed to.
This guide is written by the JustAutomate team based on hands-on build and migration work across 50+ B2B automation and AI implementation projects — several of which involved moving a client off Zapier once volume outgrew its per-task pricing, or off Make once a workflow needed a custom API call no built-in module supported. The goal is practical, decision-ready knowledge you can use on Monday morning — not a neutral feature checklist you still have to interpret yourself.
Automation platform comparison — Make vs Zapier vs n8n, features, pricing, complexity, ideal use cases, migration considerations. The three platforms diverge on a handful of practical axes: pricing structure (Zapier bills per completed task, so cost climbs directly with usage; Make bills per operation, generally with more headroom per euro spent; n8n's cloud tier is execution-based, and self-hosting removes per-run billing entirely in exchange for infrastructure you maintain yourself). They also diverge on data ownership — n8n's open-source, self-hostable nature means data never has to leave your own servers, which matters for companies in regulated or data-sensitive sectors. And they diverge on complexity ceiling: Zapier handles linear flows cleanly but gets clumsy once you add branching, loops or custom retry logic; Make's routers and iterators absorb moderate complexity without extra code; n8n's node graph plus native code nodes absorbs the most complex logic, at the cost of a steeper learning curve.
Most B2B companies approaching this area make predictable mistakes. Understanding them in advance saves months of lost time and wasted budget:
Migrating every workflow to a self-hosted n8n instance in week one, or upgrading straight to Make's highest team tier before a single scenario is proven, burns budget before you know the platform fits. Start with one contained, high-friction workflow on whichever tool suits it, and get it live in 2-4 weeks before expanding further.
"Cheaper than Zapier" is not a metric. Define what you are actually tracking before you switch: task or operation consumption per month, error rate on runs, and hours of manual work removed. Without these numbers you cannot tell whether Make's lower per-operation cost, or n8n's flat infrastructure cost, actually paid off.
Zapier's zap builder is approachable enough for an ops or marketing person to own directly. Make's scenario canvas and n8n's node graph both assume comfort with conditional logic, and n8n's code nodes assume someone who can read JavaScript. Pick a platform above your team's comfort level and every future change routes through one overloaded person.
Building a workflow with five branching conditions and custom retry logic inside Zapier turns into a maze of nested paths and filters the tool was never designed to hold. Writing a custom JavaScript function in n8n for what is really a two-step "new row, send email" sync is over-engineering a job Zapier does in five minutes. Match the platform's designed complexity ceiling to the actual shape of the workflow.
Deciding between Make, Zapier and n8n for a handful of simple two-step automations is something most ops teams can work out internally from each platform's own documentation. Deciding for a company running dozens of interconnected workflows across CRM, invoicing and support tools — where the wrong platform choice means months of rebuilding later — benefits from outside judgment that has already made, and unmade, that choice for other companies.
JustAutomate offers engagements at every level — from a 1-day platform-selection workshop that maps your existing workflows against all three tools' actual strengths, to full migration and ongoing maintenance regardless of which platform ends up the right fit. Start with a free consultation to find out where outside input would change your decision.
Don't start by asking "Make, Zapier or n8n" — start by asking which process is too slow, too error-prone or too expensive to keep doing manually. That process's complexity — how many branches it needs, how much custom logic, how sensitive the data is — points you toward the right platform, not the other way round.
Start with a 1-day process workshop with JustAutomate. We map your existing workflows against Zapier's, Make's and n8n's actual strengths and give you a concrete platform recommendation and build plan. Free initial consultation available.
Quick wins — a handful of automations saving 3-5 hours per week, rebuilt on the right platform — are typically live within 2 weeks. A full migration off an existing Zapier or Make setup, including testing, takes 4-8 weeks. We always design for a visible result within the first month.
Budget depends on which platform fits and how much of your current setup needs migrating — Zapier's per-task pricing, Make's per-operation pricing and n8n's self-hosting costs all scale differently as volume grows. We model the cost and ROI of each option before you commit — if the numbers do not work, we tell you.
We'll show you how BOND or the Personal Agent works on sample data. No generalities — a concrete case from your industry.
No reception, no helpdesk, no tickets. I'll answer directly: whether this makes sense for your company and what the first step would be.