n8n vs Make
A head-to-head framework for choosing between n8n and Make for workflow automation.
n8n vs Make is a choice between a developer-friendly automation builder and a visual automation platform that prioritizes speed. Both can orchestrate marketing and sales workflows, but the operational trade-offs are different.
This comparison is for RevOps and growth teams choosing a workflow engine to orchestrate outbound, enrichment, and CRM handoffs.
Use the framework below to select the platform that matches your technical capacity and workflow scale.
Quick take
- n8n is strong for teams that want developer control and self-hosting options.
- Make is strong for visual builders and quick iteration with less engineering.
- Both require governance around error handling and data quality.
- Pick the platform your team can maintain without brittle automations.
Decision framework for n8n vs Make
| Criteria | Weight | What to look for |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow flexibility | 25% | Branching logic, custom code, and API depth. |
| Admin governance | 20% | Role controls, audit logs, and error handling. |
| Integration coverage | 15% | Native connectors and API support. |
| Operational reliability | 15% | Monitoring, retries, and alerting. |
| Team adoption | 15% | Ease of building and maintaining workflows. |
| Scalability | 10% | Handling higher volumes and complex flows. |
Decision tree
- If you need developer control or self-hosting → n8n.
- If you need fast, visual automation without engineering → Make.
- If reliability and monitoring are critical → validate alerting and retry controls.
n8n vs Make head-to-head scorecard
| Category | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow flexibility | High, code-friendly. | High, visual-first. |
| Governance | Strong with admin setup. | Moderate, depends on plan. |
| Integration coverage | Broad with API support. | Broad with visual modules. |
| Operational reliability | Strong with monitoring setup. | Strong with built-in monitoring. |
| Team adoption | Best for mixed technical teams. | Best for non-technical builders. |
n8n vs Make comparison matrix
| Tool | Best for | Watch-outs | Implementation load | Typical cost drivers | Gotchas |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n8n | Developer-controlled workflows with flexibility. | Requires technical ownership. | Moderate | Usage tiers, hosting | Error handling needs explicit setup. |
| Make | Visual automation with quick iteration. | Complex flows can become hard to debug. | Light to moderate | Operations usage, plan tiers | Versioning must be managed carefully. |
Where each platform wins in n8n vs Make
n8n
n8n is best for teams that want flexible workflows, custom logic, and the option to self-host or control infrastructure. It supports advanced branching, API-first automations, and custom code nodes that fit complex RevOps scenarios like multi-step enrichment, routing, and CRM updates. Teams that already run internal tooling can standardize reusable components, version workflow templates, and build shared libraries of nodes. n8n also appeals when data residency matters or when you want to run automations behind your own network policies. It is useful when your team wants to integrate internal APIs, custom databases, or proprietary enrichment services. The platform gives you control over credentials, webhook endpoints, and execution environments, which helps when audits or security reviews are strict. For larger programs, teams often build staging and production workflows to prevent mistakes during edits. Where it struggles: n8n requires technical ownership for maintenance, monitoring, and error handling, and self-hosted deployments add infrastructure responsibilities. You need explicit testing steps, logging, and alerting to keep workflows reliable. If ownership is unclear, small changes can break downstream integrations and create silent failures. Teams without dedicated ops support may find troubleshooting and governance more demanding, especially as workflows grow in volume and complexity.
Make
Make is ideal for teams that want a visual, fast-to-build automation platform with a low barrier to entry. It works well for non-technical users who need to orchestrate integrations across marketing and sales tools without writing code. The visual scenario builder makes it easy to test ideas, prototype workflows, and iterate quickly with stakeholders. Teams often use it to connect CRMs, forms, email platforms, and enrichment services into simple linear workflows. Make is strongest when workflows are straightforward and well-documented. It provides scheduling, error handling, and scenario history that helps teams debug without engineering. Teams can standardize templates and keep shared modules for repeatable tasks. Where it struggles: as workflows become complex, debugging can be harder and version management requires discipline to avoid breaking automations. High-volume workflows need careful monitoring to prevent silent failures and inconsistent data handoffs. Governance can be lighter, so teams should document ownership, set naming standards, and keep a rollback plan for critical workflows. As workflows sprawl, oversight is needed to prevent duplicated logic, inconsistent data mapping, and connector permission drift. Teams should establish approval steps, monitor operation usage, and test edge cases with realistic data to avoid disruptions. Plan for periodic audits as volumes rise.
Implementation reality
Setup time: Light for Make, moderate for n8n depending on hosting and governance.
Admin overhead: Moderate for n8n, light to moderate for Make.
Adoption risks:
- Workflows are built without documentation.
- Error alerts are not configured.
- Data validation is skipped, causing downstream errors.
- Automations bypass approvals and governance.
Common failure modes and fixes:
- Silent failures → set alerting and retry logic.
- Broken integrations → monitor API changes and versions.
- Unclear ownership → assign workflow owners.
- Data inconsistencies → add validation steps.
- Over-automation → keep human review points for critical steps.
Automation platform cost model for n8n vs Make
Pricing model overview: Both platforms are usage-based with tiers tied to operations or executions. Hosting and support choices influence total investment.
- Operations or execution volume
- Plan tiers and feature access
- Hosting and infrastructure choices
- Support and admin effort
Shortlists for n8n vs Make scenarios
Scenario: developer-led automation team
Why: Needs custom logic and API control.
Risks: Maintenance load increases.
What to validate in a demo: Custom code nodes and hosting options.
Scenario: non-technical RevOps team
Why: Needs fast visual workflow building.
Risks: Workflow sprawl without governance.
What to validate in a demo: Visual workflow builder and templates.
Scenario: high-volume automations
Why: Needs reliable retries and monitoring.
Risks: Silent failures at scale.
What to validate in a demo: Monitoring and alerting controls.
Scenario: self-hosting requirement
Why: Needs infrastructure control and data residency.
Risks: Infrastructure maintenance overhead.
What to validate in a demo: Hosting options and deployment workflow.
Scenario: marketing ops rapid prototypes
Why: Needs fast iteration and visual workflows.
Risks: Workflow sprawl without governance.
What to validate in a demo: Template reuse and approval controls.
What to validate in a demo for n8n vs Make
- Error handling and retry logic.
- Workflow versioning and rollback.
- Role-based access and governance.
- Monitoring and alerting capabilities.
- API and custom code support.
- Data validation steps.
14-day proof plan for n8n vs Make
- Day 1–2: Map two critical workflows and success criteria.
- Day 3–5: Build the workflows with test data.
- Day 6–8: Add monitoring, alerts, and retry logic.
- Day 9–11: Run a pilot with real data and observe failures.
- Day 12–14: Review maintenance effort and ownership needs.
Pass/fail criteria: Workflows run reliably, alerts surface failures, and the team can maintain automations without excessive manual intervention.
Where ProspectB2B fits
ProspectB2B supports workflow-first outbound execution and can be orchestrated through automation tools based on your stack. ProspectB2B can be connected via standard webhooks/HTTP modules and orchestrated with tools like n8n/Make depending on your stack.
Ready to operationalize this with ProspectB2B? Start a free trial.
Start free trialChecklist
- Define workflow ownership and escalation paths.
- Document critical automations.
- Set error alerting rules.
- Define retry and failure handling.
- Validate data input and output steps.
- Set access controls by role.
- Review workflow versions quarterly.
- Monitor execution volumes.
- Document integration dependencies.
- Align workflows with the sales prospecting plan.
- Use the lead qualification framework for handoff rules.
- Establish QA tests for key workflows.
- Plan for API changes and deprecations.
- Track performance and latency.
- Align automation with sales handoffs.
- Define rollback procedures.
- Audit workflows monthly.
Related comparisons for automation
- Demand gen measurement stack
- Marketing automation platforms comparison
- Sales engagement platforms comparison
References
- n8n overview
- n8n documentation
- n8n pricing
- Make overview
- Make pricing
- Make help center
- n8n hosting options
- n8n workflows
Author
Carlos Henrique Soccol
Signature
Carlos Henrique Soccol (Founder)
Connect on LinkedIn → https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlos-henrique-soccol-7b61b6136/?originalSubdomain=br