We get this question at least twice a week. The answer is more nuanced than most comparison articles suggest, because we actively use both tools with clients. After dozens of implementations with both platforms, we have a fairly clear picture of when to pick which.
Make: visual, accessible, but with a ceiling
Make (formerly Integromat) is the tool we recommend when the client wants to maintain the flows themselves. The interface is visual, intuitive, and you can build a working automation without a technical background. The connector ecosystem is extensive: 1,500+ apps are directly available. A marketing employee who wants to send leads from a form to HubSpot can have it working in an hour.
The ceiling is in complexity. As soon as you need flows that manipulate data, conditionally branch at multiple levels, or need to process large batches, you hit limitations. The three limitations we encounter most often: Execution timeouts: Make stops scenarios after a certain time (depending on your plan, usually 40 minutes). For large datasets, that's a problem. Error handling: Make has basic error handling, but you can't granularly define what should happen for specific errors. And no self-hosting: all data goes via Make's servers in the EU, but you have no control over the exact location or security configuration.
n8n: powerful, flexible, but steeper
n8n is the tool we prefer to use ourselves. Self-hosted, open-source, and with full control over data, execution time, and scalability. You can write JavaScript in nodes, make custom API calls, and build complex error handling. The community is growing fast and the number of available integrations increases monthly.
The downside: the learning curve is steeper. The interface is less intuitive than Make, and for advanced functionality you need to be willing to write code in JavaScript or Python nodes. That means you either need a technical team, or a partner like us to handle management.
But that downside is also an advantage: because n8n doesn't compromise usability at the expense of functionality, you can build virtually anything with it. We have n8n workflows that process 10,000+ records daily, with complex branching, database lookups, and multi-step error handling. That wouldn't be possible in Make.
Concrete comparison: the same use case in both tools
A common scenario: invoice arrives by email, AI extracts data, data gets validated, booking is created in Exact Online. In Make: 6 modules, works fine for standard invoices. But as soon as you want error handling (what if the supplier is unknown? What if the AI can't read a field? What if the Exact API times out?), you need to build a separate path for each error. The flow quickly becomes unwieldy.
In n8n: 8-10 nodes with a clear structure. The error workflow catches all errors centrally, categorizes them, and routes them to the right action. An unknown supplier goes to a Slack channel. An API timeout is automatically retried three times. An AI extraction error sends the original invoice to a manual processing queue. Everything in one workflow, everything organized.
Our rule of thumb
Is the client non-technical and wants to build and maintain simple flows themselves? Make. Are the flows complex, privacy-sensitive, or need to handle large volumes? n8n. Does the client want a combination? Then we build the core in n8n and give the client Make for their own extensions.
In practice, we increasingly see hybrid setups. The simple flows (lead notifications, social media posts, form-to-spreadsheet) run in Make where the marketing team can maintain them. The complex flows (invoice processing, system integrations, data pipelines) run in n8n where we manage them. Both tools do what they're good at.
