TL;DR: Zapier if you're non-technical and want everything to just connect. Make if you think visually and watch your budget. n8n if you're an engineer, an agency, or running high-volume/AI-heavy workflows — per-execution pricing plus self-hosting makes it 10–100× cheaper at scale, and its AI-agent nodes are the strongest of the three. I ship most client work on n8n.
I've built automations on all three for years — CRM pipelines, lead routing, voice-agent integrations, reporting systems for clients across the US and Europe. Here's the comparison I give clients, without the affiliate-link glaze most "vs" posts have.
The 30-second version
| Zapier | Make | n8n | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best for | Non-technical teams | Visual builders, SMB budgets | Engineers, agencies, AI workflows |
| Pricing unit | Per task (each step) | Per operation | Per execution (whole run) |
| Cost at high volume | 💸💸💸 | 💸💸 | 💸 (or ~free self-hosted) |
| App catalog | ~7,000+ (biggest) | ~2,000 | ~1,100 + HTTP node for anything |
| Code steps | Limited | Some | First-class (JS/Python anywhere) |
| AI agents | Basic steps | Basic | Native agent nodes, tools, memory |
| Self-hosting | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Debugging | Task history | Visual replay | Full execution data, step-by-step re-run |
The pricing difference that actually matters
The units are the whole game. A lead-intake workflow with ten steps that runs 1,000 times a month:
- Zapier: 10 steps × 1,000 runs = 10,000 tasks → mid-tier plan territory, often $100–$300+/month for one busy workflow.
- Make: 10,000 operations → cheaper, commonly $20–$60/month.
- n8n cloud: 1,000 executions (step count irrelevant) → entry-tier money. Self-hosted: a $10 VPS runs practically unlimited.
This is why agencies standardize on n8n: client workflows are long (many steps) and busy (many runs) — exactly the shape Zapier's pricing punishes.
Where each one genuinely wins
Zapier — the catalog and the polish. If the tools you use are obscure SaaS apps, Zapier probably has the connector nobody else does. Fastest zero-to-working for simple "when X then Y." Where it hurts: multi-branch logic gets clunky, costs compound silently, and you can't touch the metal.
Make — the best visual canvas of the three. Routers, iterators and aggregators make medium-complexity flows genuinely pleasant, and the visual replay debugger is excellent. Where it hurts: error handling on long chains gets fiddly, and operations pricing still stings on chatty workflows.
n8n — control. Drop to JavaScript in any node, hit any API with the HTTP node (no waiting for a connector), self-host for data residency or cost, and version your workflows like code. The AI side is the real separator now: agent nodes with tool-calling, memory and routing let you build things like "webhook from a Retell call → agent decides → writes CRM, checks calendar, drafts SMS" as one coherent workflow. Where it hurts: the learning curve is real — non-technical teammates won't casually edit an n8n workflow the way they might a Zap.
What I actually deploy, by client type
- Local service business (the missed-call textback crowd): whatever their CRM ships with (usually GoHighLevel's native automations) + n8n for anything custom.
- Startups / AI products: n8n, no debate — the AI nodes, code steps and webhook-first design fit product work.
- Ops teams with no engineer: Zapier or Make, because the automation you can't maintain yourself is a liability, not an asset.
Migration advice nobody gives
Don't migrate working Zaps for sport. Migrate when: (a) the monthly bill crosses what a VPS + an afternoon costs, (b) you need a code step Zapier can't express, or (c) AI-agent logic enters the picture. Then move the expensive workflows first and leave the trivial ones where they are — hybrid setups are fine and everyone runs them.
I build automation systems (and the AI voice agents they power) for clients through Null Studio — book a call if you want yours built by someone who's hit all three platforms' sharp edges already.