n8n vs Make: Credits, Executions, and Where the Cost Curves Cross

Make and n8n workflows appear almost identical at first glance. Both allow you to connect various apps like Gmail and Google Sheets without coding knowledge, and both offer a free option to get started. However, the key difference becomes evident in the billing structure based on usage.

Make bills based on "credits". Each action within a workflow costs one credit - whether it's reading or writing data, processing with AI or running built-in transformations. Certain modules like the Router and error handlers are excluded from the credit count. On the other hand, n8n counts "executions". An execution represents a single run of the entire workflow, irrespective of the number of steps involved. This is similar to billing per session rather than per API call.

In the first scenario, a relatively simple workflow with five steps and 500 monthly runs would cost approximately 2,500 credits on Make. This falls within their free tier of 10,000 credits billed annually on the Core plan. Conversely, n8n would only require 500 executions, fitting within their Starter plan priced at 20 euros monthly on an annual billing cycle.

The cost comparison tightens when looking at longer workflows. When the steps increase to ten with 2,000 monthly executions, Make's credit usage soars to around 20,000 credits due to their per-action pricing model. However, n8n's execution count remains at a manageable 2,000 even with complex workflows. This is because n8n only charges based on the number of runs, not the number of steps within each run.

As the complexity of the workflow grows with more steps or loops, n8n's per-run billing model starts to become more cost-efficient.

While the example uses hypothetical workflows and different currencies (dollars for Make and euros for n8n), it illustrates the general principle. The shape of the cost curve - how costs increase with usage - differs significantly between the two platforms.

Make offers a free plan with 1,000 monthly credits, routers, filters, and requires a minimum 15-minute interval between runs. Paid Core plans provide unlimited active scenarios and minute-level scheduling. On the other hand, n8n's Community Edition is free self-hosted, and their Cloud version offers a trial with no credit card required, including 1,000 executions and Pro-level features.

An advantage of Make is its free plan which includes routers and filters, allowing users to build branching scenarios without incurring costs. Self-hosting n8n provides an alternative as the software can be installed on your own infrastructure. However, this requires technical knowledge for server management and backups.

Both platforms have extensive integration capabilities with thousands of apps. However, the specific integrations available may vary, so it's advisable to check both directories for compatibility with your required apps.

In terms of security, Make holds SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 audits, an ISO 27001 certified program, and adheres to GDPR with logs stored for 30 days. n8n's Cloud service is hosted in the EU, and its security program aligns with SOC 2 standards.

When choosing between the two, short or medium scenarios with scheduled jobs might lean towards Make due to its lower entry price. Longer workflows, AI agents, high-volume usage, or potential self-hosting in the future might be better suited to n8n. For those unsure, building the same small workflow in both tools before committing can provide a clearer picture. Both platforms offer free trials where you can practice and test sample data without impacting your real accounts.