n8n vs. Zapier vs. Make: Which Automation Tool Fits Your Needs?

Zapier, Make, or n8n? The short answer comes down to three things: how technical your team is, how many workflows you run, and how strict your data-protection requirements are.

If you have a small, non-technical team and only need a few simple automations, go with Zapier. If you want more flexibility but do not want to run your own server, Make is the better choice. And if you run many workflows, need to keep customer data in the EU, or need custom logic, there is barely a way around n8n.

So much for the short version. Now the honest part: I am not a neutral observer. At Pipewave, I build automations for B2B companies and have used n8n almost exclusively for the past two years. Still, I see where Zapier and Make are the better choice. That is exactly what I sort out here, by use case.

The Short Version: Which Tool for Whom?

Your situation	Recommendation
Small team, no technical know-how, few workflows	Zapier
Want more flexibility, but no own server	Make
Many workflows, GDPR requirements, custom logic	n8n (self-hosted)
Many executions, costs should not explode as you grow	n8n (self-hosted)

The reason the choice does not hinge on features: at their core, all three tools do the same thing. They connect software A with software B and run logic in between. Ticking feature boxes in tables helps little. What matters is your use case. Let us go through them.

For Small, Non-Technical Teams: Zapier

Zapier has the simplest interface of the three. No code needed, clear step-by-step logic. For "new form submission → email to sales → row in Google Sheet," it is set up in minutes and runs reliably.

Zapier is worth it when:

Your team should build automations themselves, without programming. The interface is built for "when X happens, do Y": trigger, a few steps, done.

The volume stays low. Under 750 tasks per month, Zapier at around $20 is fairly priced.

You want to connect many niche apps. Zapier has the most pre-built integrations. If you use an obscure tool, Zapier probably has a connector for it.

The limit shows up in two places: as soon as your workflows get more complex (loops, transforming data, catching errors, parallel branches) and as soon as the volume grows. At scale, Zapier gets expensive fast, more on that below.

For More Flexibility Without Your Own Server: Make

Make sits between Zapier and n8n. The workflows look like flowcharts, data transformations are more flexible than in Zapier, and it is cheaper per operation. There is an HTTP module and JSON parsing that get you further than "Code by Zapier." Still, at some point you notice that you are working around the tool instead of with it.

Make charges by "operations" instead of tasks, but otherwise the same principle applies as with Zapier: the more workflows run, the more you pay. For teams that need more than Zapier but do not want to deal with self-hosting, Make is a solid choice.

For Many Workflows and Full Data Control: n8n

This is the case I almost always build for at Pipewave. Three things speak for n8n once things get serious.

Data control. n8n can be self-hosted. For me, it runs on a Hetzner VPS for 7 EUR per month, in Frankfurt. Your workflow data, API keys, and customer data never leave your infrastructure. Zapier and Make are cloud-only, and your data runs through their servers in the US. For a B2B company in the EU that processes customer data through automations, self-hosting is often a dealbreaker against the cloud tools.

Custom code. In n8n, you open a code node and write JavaScript. Or Python. With access to npm packages. You can transform data any way you want, call external APIs, build error handling, write loops. Zapier has "Code by Zapier," limited to individual steps, with no persistent state. In Make you get further with the HTTP module and JSON, but you work around the tool. In n8n it feels like programming, because it is programming.

A concrete example: for a client, I use OpenAI to extract structured data from email signatures. The prompt goes out, the response comes back as JSON, I parse it, validate the fields, check if the contact already exists in the CRM, and create or update it. That is 15+ nodes with custom logic. In Zapier, I would have needed three different workarounds or given up entirely.

No artificial limits. No task limits, no operations limits, no throttling from the tool itself. When a client asks "can we also add X?", the answer is almost always yes.

The downside: you need someone who can set up n8n, maintain it, and build workflows. It is not a tool that a marketing manager learns in an afternoon. But that is what people like me are for.

(Yes, n8n also has a cloud version with pricing similar to Zapier. I am specifically talking about self-hosting here, because that is what I recommend.)

Costs: Where Zapier and Make Get Expensive at Scale

This is where the tools separate most clearly. A calculation example from practice.

Zapier charges by "tasks." Every action in a workflow is a task. A workflow with 5 steps that runs 100 times a day uses 500 tasks per day. That is 15,000 per month.

Zapier Starter gives you 750 tasks for $19.99/month. For 15,000 tasks, you are long past into the Professional plan: $49.99 for 2,000 tasks, which is not even enough. You end up at $100+ per month fast. Make with its operations is slightly cheaper, but follows the same pattern.

n8n self-hosted costs the server. For me, that is the Hetzner VPS for 7 EUR per month. All workflows run on it, no matter how many, no matter how often.

For context: in one client project, I have 15+ workflows running that fire on every CRM event. Dozens of executions per day. On Zapier, I would be at several hundred dollars per month. On n8n, I pay 7 EUR. Over a year, that saves this client over 10,000 EUR compared to HubSpot Professional Workflows, documented in a case study. If you want to know what such a setup looks like in practice: I build these workflow automations as a core service.

The HubSpot Question

Since many of my clients use HubSpot: all three tools have HubSpot integrations. But the depth differs.

Zapier's HubSpot integration covers the standard triggers: new contact, new deal, form submission. For about 80% of use cases, that is enough.

What about the other 20%? If you want to react to custom object events, need webhook subscriptions through a private app, or want to set properties dynamically based on logic, you need API access. In n8n, you just call the HubSpot API directly. No detour, no restrictions from pre-built triggers.

The Honest Comparison at a Glance

	Zapier	Make	n8n (self-hosted)
Barrier to entry	Low	Medium	High
Cost at scale	High	Medium	Very low
Custom code	Limited	Restricted	Full (JS/Python)
Self-hosting	No	No	Yes
GDPR / data control	Difficult	Difficult	Full
HubSpot depth	Standard triggers	Standard triggers	Full API

To put it plainly one more time: small team without technical resources and simple automations? Zapier. More flexibility, but no self-hosting? Make. Serious automation, control over your data, ready for a bit more setup effort? n8n.

And if you do not want to set it up yourself but still want the benefits: that is what Pipewave is for.

Let us figure out in 15 minutes which setup fits you

---

Written by Joshua Kresse. I build automations with n8n for B2B companies that need more than what Zapier offers.