By Mikhail Oskola, founder of Retailbox Automation.
Checked: prices and plan limits on 17 October 2026, against Zapier's, Make's and n8n's own pricing pages, from a US connection. Prices change, so confirm current prices with each vendor.
Zapier, Make, and n8n all connect your apps and automate the manual steps between them - the real difference is billing model, hosting, and how much complexity each one can handle before it breaks down. Zapier is the fastest to start and the easiest to hand to a non-technical team member; Make is the middle ground on price and power; n8n is the only one of the three you can self-host, and it's the one built for AI-agent workflows and high-volume runs where per-task pricing gets expensive. None of the three is 'best' - they're built for different shaped problems, and picking the wrong one is why some B2B automation projects get expensive or fragile fast. This guide breaks down what actually separates them, when each is the right call, and what they cost at real B2B volume - not the trial-tier numbers on the pricing page.
What are Zapier, Make, and n8n?
- Zapier is a cloud-only, no-code automation tool built for connecting two or three apps with simple if-this-then-that logic. It has the largest app library of the three and the gentlest learning curve.
- Make (formerly Integromat) is also cloud-only and no-code, but exposes automation as a visual flowchart - branches, routers, and loops are first-class, so it handles more complex logic than Zapier without needing custom code.
- n8n is open-source and can run in the cloud or fully self-hosted. It's node-based like Make, but it's the only one of the three where you can write custom JavaScript or Python inside a workflow, self-host for data control, and orchestrate AI models like OpenAI and Claude as native steps rather than bolted-on add-ons.
What's the real difference between them?
| Feature | Zapier | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Tasks (1 task = 1 successful action step) | Credits - formerly called 'operations' (1 module action = 1 credit) | Executions (1 execution = 1 full workflow run, regardless of step count) |
| Hosting | Cloud only | Cloud only | Cloud or self-hosted (free, open-source core) |
| Complexity ceiling | Low to medium (linear Zaps, limited branching) | Medium to high (routers, loops, error-handling branches) | High (custom code steps, sub-workflows, full programmatic control) |
| AI-agent orchestration | Add-on (AI by Zapier, billed in tasks: 1, 3 or 5 per AI step, depending on the model tier) | Add-on (Make AI Agents, added Feb 2026) | Native - AI steps are first-class nodes, not an add-on |
| Learning curve | Lowest - closest to no-code | Moderate - visual but more powerful | Steepest - most power, assumes some technical comfort |
| Best for | A handful of simple, low-volume zaps | Mid-complexity workflows, small automation team | High-volume, custom logic, AI pipelines, self-hosted data control |
The billing-unit difference is the one that surprises people most: a 5-step Zapier automation running 100 times a month burns 500 tasks, while the identical workflow in n8n - 5 steps, 100 runs - burns 100 executions, because n8n counts one execution per full run, not per step. That's why step-heavy workflows get disproportionately expensive on Zapier as they scale, even when the actual work being done is the same.
When should you use Zapier?
Zapier earns its price when the automation is genuinely simple and someone non-technical needs to build or edit it without help: a new form submission adds a row to a sheet, a new deal in the CRM posts to Slack, a calendar booking sends a confirmation email. If the automation is one trigger and one or two actions, and volume is low, Zapier's app library and setup speed usually beat the alternatives - you're paying for convenience, and at low volume that convenience is cheap.
When should you use Make?
Make fits the automations that have outgrown one trigger, one action but don't need custom code or self-hosting: routing leads through multiple qualification branches, syncing data between three or four tools with conditional logic, or running a scenario that needs to loop over a list and handle errors differently depending on what failed. It's the middle tier for a reason - more automation power than Zapier per dollar, without the technical overhead of n8n.
When should you use n8n?
n8n is the right call once any of these are true: you need to self-host for data-residency or cost-control reasons; the workflow needs custom logic that a visual builder alone can't express (a JavaScript step, a specific API auth flow, a sub-workflow called from five different places); you're orchestrating AI models as a core part of the workflow, not a bolt-on; or you're running high enough volume that per-task or per-operation billing on the other two starts to hurt. It's also the option that scales down in cost the furthest - a self-hosted instance on a small VPS runs unlimited executions for a fraction of what an equivalent-volume cloud plan on any of the three would cost, at the price of someone owning the hosting.
What do they cost at real B2B volume?
Pricing changes often enough that any snapshot ages. The figures below were checked against Zapier's, Make's, and n8n's own pricing pages on October 17, 2026, from a US connection, not pulled from a third-party comparison site. All three discount annual billing, so each price is given twice: billed annually, then billed monthly. Two caveats. Make charges different prices in different countries, and the Make figures here are what a US visitor sees. n8n sets its prices in euros; its page showed us US dollars at the same figures. Confirm current pricing on each vendor's page before you commit.
| Platform | Free tier | Entry-level paid plan | Team / high-volume plan | Self-hosted option |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier | 100 tasks/month | $19.99/mo billed annually or $29.99/mo billed monthly - 750 tasks (Professional) | $69/mo billed annually or $103.50/mo billed monthly - 2,000 tasks (Team), scaling to 2M+ tasks/month with per-task cost dropping at volume | Not available |
| Make | 1,000 credits/month | $12/mo billed annually or $16/mo billed monthly - 10,000 credits (Core) | $21/mo (Pro) to $38/mo (Teams) billed annually, or $28 to $51 billed monthly, at 10,000 credits, scaling to 8M credits/month via a usage slider | Not available |
| n8n | No permanent free Cloud tier | $20/mo billed annually or $24/mo billed monthly - 2,500 executions (Starter, Cloud) | $50/mo billed annually or $60/mo billed monthly - 10,000 executions (Pro, Cloud). Business (about $667/mo billed annually, i.e. $8,000/year, or $800/mo billed monthly, 40,000 executions) is self-hosted only, so on n8n Cloud the next step up from Pro is Enterprise at a custom price | Yes - Community edition is free and open-source; you only pay for the server it runs on, typically $5–$40/month |
What does it cost to have someone build the workflow for you?
The numbers above are platform subscriptions: what you pay Zapier, Make, or n8n for the tool itself. They don't include the time to design and build the automation. Whoever builds it, an employee or an outside builder, prices that work separately, and on self-hosted n8n someone also has to keep the server running.
Ask for the build price as a fixed scope per workflow, and ask who owns the account and the hosting afterwards.
Can you combine them, or switch later?
Yes, and in practice most growing B2B teams end up doing exactly that rather than picking one tool forever. A common pattern: start on Zapier for the first few simple automations because setup is fast, move the ones that get complex or expensive onto Make as branching logic piles up, and move the highest-volume or AI-heavy workflows onto self-hosted n8n once the cost or the logic outgrows what a no-code visual builder can express cleanly. There's no lock-in cost to mixing them - the tools solve different shaped problems, not competing versions of the same problem.
If you're not sure which shape your own process is yet, that's the question we answer first - see how we approach business process automation before picking a tool.
FAQ
Is n8n cheaper than Zapier?
At meaningful volume, usually yes - self-hosted n8n has no per-task cost at all, only server hosting, and even n8n Cloud's execution-based billing tends to undercut Zapier's per-step task billing once a workflow has more than a couple of steps. At very low volume (a handful of simple zaps a month) Zapier's free or entry tier can be cheaper in absolute dollars, just less flexible.
Can Make do what n8n does?
Mostly, for visual/no-code logic - Make's routers and loops cover most of what n8n's node canvas does. What Make can't do is run custom code inside a step or be self-hosted; if either of those is a requirement, n8n is the only one of the three that qualifies.
Do automation agencies build on Zapier, Make, or n8n?
It depends on the agency, and it should depend on your workload, not on what's easiest for them to sell. Ask specifically which tool they'd use for your use case and why - a good answer references your volume and complexity, not a blanket 'we only do X.'
What's the easiest of the three to learn?
Zapier, by a clear margin - it's built for non-technical users first. Make is learnable without a developer but has more concepts (routers, aggregators, iterators) to pick up. n8n has the steepest curve because it exposes the most power, including code steps.
Which is best for AI-agent workflows?
n8n, because AI steps are native nodes rather than an add-on - you can chain a model call into the same workflow as your CRM sync, data transform, and error handling without switching platforms. Zapier and Make both added AI features in 2026, but as additions to an existing billing model rather than a ground-up design for it.
Who wrote this
Retailbox is an automation agency that builds on Make and n8n, so we have a stake in this comparison. Here is what our own work on them covers. On Make.com, we built a flow for a multi-platform business that takes one source post and distributes it automatically to several social platforms. On n8n, we built an AI parts-prediction system for an appliance and HVAC repair company, with Claude and ServiceTitan, trained on 18,513 historical service records.
We have no Zapier project we can describe publicly, and we haven't run the same workload on all three tools side by side. The comparison above comes from the vendors' own pages and pricing, not from a benchmark of ours.
Originally published at https://retailbox-automation.com/blog/make-vs-n8n-vs-zapier. Want this built for your team? See Retailbox n8n Automation Services.
