Checked September 26, 2026. n8n publishes cloud prices in euros and Make in US dollars; figures are not currency-converted. Based on published pricing and documentation, not a hands-on build. This guide covers Make.com, formerly Integromat.
Both are serious automation platforms with visual builders, and both are considerably cheaper than the category leader. What separates them is what they count.
n8n charges one execution per workflow run, however complex. Make charges one credit per module action. So the answer depends on the shape of your automations: complexity pushes you toward n8n, sheer frequency of simple runs pushes you toward Make.
n8n vs Make at a glance
| n8n | Make | |
|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Executions — one per workflow run | Credits — one per standard module action |
| Does complexity cost more? | No | Yes, directly |
| Does frequency cost more? | Yes, directly | Yes, directly |
| Entry paid plan | Starter €20/month, billed annually | Core $10.59/month ($9 annually) |
| Included at entry | 2,500 executions | 10,000 credits |
| Free option | Community Edition, self-hosted, no vendor limit | 1,000 credits, two active scenarios |
| Users | Unlimited on paid cloud plans | Collaboration features from Teams |
| Self-hosting | Yes | No |
Sources: n8n pricing and Make pricing, both checked September 26, 2026.
Where the line falls
Because the two meter differently, the cheaper option flips depending on your workflow shape. Take a workflow with five acting modules and vary how often it runs.
| Runs per month | n8n executions | Make credits | n8n plan | Make plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 500 | 500 | 2,500 | Starter €20 | Core $10.59 |
| 2,000 | 2,000 | 10,000 | Starter €20 | Core, at its limit |
| 3,000 | 3,000 | 15,000 | Pro €50 | Core + extra credits |
Now hold the frequency at 500 runs and make the workflow more elaborate instead — fifteen modules rather than five:
| Modules per run | n8n executions | Make credits |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 500 | 2,500 |
| 15 | 500 — unchanged | 7,500 — tripled |
That is the decision in one table. Complexity is free on n8n and expensive on Make. Frequency costs on both. A team running a handful of elaborate workflows will find n8n dramatically cheaper; a team running many small ones will find the two close, with Make's lower entry price often winning.
Beyond the metering
Iterators are Make's trap. A module that loops over 50 records consumes 50 credits, not one. This is the most common source of underestimated Make bills, and it has no n8n equivalent because n8n does not charge per item.
Concurrency is n8n's. Starter allows five concurrent executions. That is comfortable for scheduled work spread through the day and uncomfortable for bursty webhook traffic, where runs will queue. Pro lifts it to 20.
Self-hosting is n8n only. The Community Edition has no vendor execution limit, which is genuinely attractive for high-volume or data-residency cases. It is not free to operate: server, database, backups, monitoring, upgrades and someone's time all remain yours.
Make's tier structure rewards knowing it. Core, Pro and Teams all include the same 10,000 credits — the higher tiers sell priority execution, larger files, log search and collaboration. Buy credits for throughput, tiers for features.
Plans side by side
| n8n | Monthly (annual) | Executions | Concurrency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Community | €0 self-hosted | No vendor limit | Your infrastructure |
| Starter | €20 | 2,500 | 5 |
| Pro | €50 | 10,000 | 20 |
| Business | €667 | 40,000 | Higher — self-hosted licence |
| Make | Monthly | Annual equivalent | Credits | Interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | $0 | 1,000 | 15 min scheduled |
| Core | $10.59 | $9 | 10,000 | 1 min |
| Pro | $18.82 | $16 | 10,000 | 1 min |
| Teams | $34.12 | $29 | 10,000 | 1 min |
n8n's Business tier is a 13× price step over Pro for 4× the executions — it sells SSO, Git version control and environment separation, not capacity.
Which should you choose?
Choose n8n when workflows are elaborate, when you need unlimited users, when data must stay on your infrastructure, or when you expect workflows to grow in complexity rather than volume.
Choose Make when workflows are short and numerous, when the $9–$10.59 entry price matters, or when you want a polished hosted experience with no infrastructure to run.
Settle it with one calculation. Count acting modules per workflow and monthly runs. Multiply for Make credits; sum the runs for n8n executions. Include anything that loops. The answer is usually not close.
Where Jet Admin fits
Both are engines that move data between systems and then stop. Neither gives your operations team a screen. Jet Admin builds that interface over a database or API you already have, so the three sit together rather than competing.
| Priority | What to evaluate |
|---|---|
| Machine-to-machine work only | n8n or Make alone; Jet Admin adds nothing |
| A process with human review or approval | Automation plus an interface — cost them together |
| Many colleagues need access | Jet Admin and n8n include unlimited users; Make adds collaboration on Teams |
| Entry paid plan | Jet Admin Pro $20/month ($16 annually); Make Core $10.59; n8n Starter €20 |
Sources: Jet Admin pricing, n8n pricing, Make pricing.
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, n8n or Make?
It depends on workflow shape. For complex workflows n8n is usually far cheaper, because complexity does not increase its bill. For many simple, frequent runs Make's lower entry price often wins.
What counts as an execution in n8n?
One complete workflow run, regardless of node count or data volume.
What counts as a credit in Make?
Most standard module operations consume one credit. Iterators consume one per item processed, which is where estimates most often go wrong.
Can I self-host either one?
n8n yes, through the Community Edition and licensed self-hosted tiers. Make is cloud-only.
Do either charge per user?
n8n includes unlimited users on paid cloud plans. Make gates team collaboration behind its Teams tier rather than charging per seat for usage.
Which is easier to learn?
Both use visual canvases rather than linear builders, so neither is as immediately approachable as a simpler tool. Make's interface is more polished; n8n rewards technical users with more control and a code node.
Measure complexity and frequency separately
Those two numbers decide this comparison, and most teams only estimate one of them. Count the acting modules in your three busiest workflows, then count their monthly runs, and price both platforms from the same figures.
If the exercise shows workflows that exist only to put records somewhere a person can read them, build that view directly on your data and see which runs you can retire entirely.
