n8n vs. Zapier vs. Make: Which Automation Tool Fits Your Needs?
I work with n8n every day and have tried Zapier and Make. Here is my honest comparison -- with real numbers, limits, and a clear recommendation.
n8n vs. Zapier vs. Make: Which Automation Tool Fits Your Needs?
If you are currently deciding between Zapier, Make, or n8n for your automations: I have worked with all three, but for the past two years I have been using n8n almost exclusively. This article explains why.
Quick disclaimer: I am not a neutral observer. At Pipewave, I build automations for B2B companies, and n8n is my primary tool. Still, I will try to be fair here. Zapier and Make have their place. But for the kind of projects I work on, nothing comes close to n8n.
What the Decision Actually Comes Down To
Most comparison articles list features and tick checkboxes in tables. That is not very helpful, because all three tools do the same thing at their core: they connect software A with software B and run logic in between.
The real difference lies elsewhere. Three questions decide it:
How much control do you need over your data? Zapier and Make are cloud-only. Your workflow data, API keys, and customer data run through their servers in the US. For many teams, that is fine. For a B2B company in the EU that processes customer data through automations, it is not. n8n can be self-hosted. On a 7 EUR VPS in Frankfurt. Your data never leaves your infrastructure.
How complex will your workflows get? Zapier is built for "when X happens, do Y." Trigger, a few steps, done. That works great for simple things: new lead in HubSpot, send a Slack message. As soon as you need loops, want to transform data, react to errors, or run multiple branches in parallel, you hit limits. Make can do more there, but has its own learning curve. n8n just gives you a code node: JavaScript or Python, write whatever you want.
What happens to costs when you scale? This is where it gets really interesting.
Costs: Where Zapier and Make Get Expensive
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 already need the Professional plan: $49.99 for 2,000 tasks, which... is not even enough. You end up at $100+ per month fast.
Make works similarly, calling them "operations" instead of tasks. Slightly cheaper than Zapier, but the same principle: the more workflows run, the more you pay.
n8n self-hosted costs: the server. For me, that is a Hetzner VPS for 7 EUR per month. All workflows run on it. No matter how many. No matter how often. No task limits, no operations limits.
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: 7 EUR.
(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.)
Custom Code: The Real Game Changer
If you only need pre-built integrations, all three tools are fine. The difference shows up the moment you need to build something custom.
Zapier has had "Code by Zapier" for a while. Limited to individual steps, no persistent state, restricted libraries. It feels like a workaround, not a feature.
Make has an HTTP module and JSON parsing. More flexible than Zapier, but you quickly notice that you are working around the tool instead of with it.
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 within a workflow, call external APIs, build error handling, write loops. 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.
The HubSpot Question
Since many of my clients use HubSpot: all three tools have HubSpot integrations. But the depth differs.
Zapier covers the standard triggers: new contact, new deal, form submission. For 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.
Where Zapier Still Makes Sense
Zapier is good when:
You have a non-technical team that should build automations themselves. The interface is the simplest of the three. No code needed, clear step-by-step logic. For "new form submission, email to sales, row in Google Sheet," Zapier is quick to set up and works reliably.
You only need a few simple workflows and the volume stays low. Under 750 tasks per month, Zapier at ~$20/month 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.
Where Make Has Its Place
Make sits in between. More visual than Zapier (workflows look like flowcharts), more flexible with data transformations, cheaper per operation. For teams that need more than Zapier but do not want to deal with self-hosting, Make is a solid option.
Why I Recommend n8n
For my clients, I almost always recommend n8n. The reasons:
Cost. A VPS for 7 EUR per month. No task limits. For one client, that saves over 10,000 EUR per year compared to HubSpot Professional Workflows. I documented that in a case study.
Data control. Self-hosted in the EU. No third party sees the data. For B2B clients with GDPR requirements, that is often a dealbreaker in the other direction.
Flexibility. Custom code, HTTP requests, error handling, sub-workflows. When a client says "can we also add X?", the answer is almost always yes.
No artificial limits. No throttling, no rate limits from the tool itself. (The APIs you call have their own limits, of course.)
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.
The Honest Summary
| 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 |
If you are a small team, need simple automations, and have no one who can get technical: go with Zapier. It works and is quick to set up.
If you want more flexibility but no self-hosting: look at Make.
If you want to automate seriously, need control over your data, and are willing to invest a bit more setup effort: go with 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.