If you're evaluating workflow automation platforms, you've probably noticed something: Zapier's pricing looks reasonable at first glance, until your automations actually start working. Then the per-task pricing kicks in and suddenly you're paying $800/month for something that could run on a $20 VPS. Here's an honest, engineer's-eye-view comparison of the three leading platforms — n8n, Zapier, and Make — based on real production experience across dozens of client deployments.
Let's start with the pricing model, because this is where the biggest difference hides. Zapier charges per task — every time a Zap runs, you pay. Make (formerly Integromat) charges per operation, which is similar but slightly more granular. n8n, when self-hosted, charges... nothing per execution. You pay for the server it runs on, and that's it. A $20/month Hetzner VPS can handle 100,000+ n8n workflow executions per month. On Zapier's Professional plan ($73.50/month), you get 2,000 tasks. To handle 100,000 tasks on Zapier, you'd need their Team plan at $828.50/month. That's a 40x difference — and it grows linearly with your volume.
The second major difference is what happens when things break. Zapier's error handling is... optimistic. If a step fails, the Zap stops, and you get an email. Make's error handling is better — you can define error routes and retry policies within the scenario builder. n8n's error handling is the most powerful: you can attach error workflows to any node, implement exponential backoff with jitter, route errors to Slack or email automatically, and — critically — version-control your workflows in Git so you can roll back a bad change instantly. For mission-critical business processes, this alone justifies n8n.
On integrations: Zapier wins on breadth (5,000+ apps), but Make and n8n are catching up fast (both around 2,000+). The real question is whether the integrations you need are deep enough. Zapier's integrations tend to be shallow — basic triggers and actions, limited field mapping. Make's are deeper, with more complex data transformation capabilities. n8n's are the deepest when they exist, because the platform exposes the full API of each integration rather than abstracting it away. And when an integration doesn't exist, n8n lets you build a custom node in TypeScript — you're not waiting for a vendor to prioritize your feature request.
Self-hosting is n8n's killer feature and the reason most of our enterprise clients choose it. With Zapier and Make, your workflow data flows through their servers. For GDPR, SOC 2, HIPAA, or just sensible data governance, that's a non-starter. n8n runs on your infrastructure — your VPS, your Kubernetes cluster, your VPC. The data never leaves your network. You control the encryption, the backups, the access logs. For regulated industries, this isn't a nice-to-have; it's a requirement.
The honest trade-off: n8n has a steeper learning curve. The UI is powerful but less polished than Make's drag-and-drop canvas. You'll need someone comfortable with Docker, environment variables, and basic server administration to set up the self-hosted instance. But once it's running, you have an automation platform that costs 40x less at scale, gives you full data sovereignty, and can be extended with custom code when the built-in nodes aren't enough. For startups and SMBs running on Zapier, the migration to n8n typically pays for itself within 3-4 months.
Our recommendation: if you're under 750 tasks/month and don't handle sensitive data, Zapier is fine. If you're between 750 and 5,000 operations/month and need better data transformation, Make is worth the switch. If you're above 5,000 operations/month, handle sensitive data, or need custom integrations — go n8n self-hosted. The break-even point where n8n becomes cheaper than Zapier is roughly 1,200 tasks/month, accounting for the server cost and initial setup time.