Every automation project, clients ask the same question: "Why not just use Zapier?" It's a fair question. Zapier is the most well-known, the easiest to start with, and virtually anyone in an organization can build a simple flow with it. Yet in most cases, we choose n8n. Here's why.
Self-hosted: your data stays yours
n8n can run on your own server. For companies working with customer data, invoices, or medical records, that's not a luxury but a requirement. With Zapier, all data flows through their US servers. With n8n, everything runs on a VPS in Amsterdam if you want. From a GDPR perspective, that's a world of difference.
We deploy n8n on a dedicated server per client by default. Monthly costs for this are between 20 and 50 euros, depending on load. Compare that to Zapier's Team plan at $69/month, where you still have no control over where your data lives. For a healthcare client, this was the deciding factor: their data protection officer wouldn't sign off on a tool that sends patient data to the US.
Complex flows without limitations
Zapier works fine for straight A-to-B flows. Email comes in, row in spreadsheet. But as soon as you need conditional logic, loops, error handling, or multiple API calls in sequence, you hit limits. n8n is built as a visual programming tool. You can branch, merge, loop, and build error handling without workarounds.
A concrete example: a client wanted to classify incoming emails with GPT-4, trigger different actions depending on the type, and send a Slack notification to the right department when unsure. In Zapier, that required three separate Zaps with webhooks between them. In n8n, it's a single workflow of 8 nodes.
Another example we build regularly: invoice processing. The flow receives an email with a PDF attachment, sends the PDF to an AI model for extraction, validates the output against a supplier list, creates a draft booking in Exact Online, and sends a Slack alert if something deviates. That's 12 steps with conditional logic, error handling, and retry. In n8n, it's a clear workflow. In Zapier, it would be an unmaintainable web of 5-6 Zaps.
The technical details that matter
n8n supports native JavaScript/Python in Code nodes. That sounds like a detail, but it makes the difference when you need to transform data that doesn't come in a standard format. Parsing a JSON response, converting a CSV, or calculating based on multiple inputs: in n8n you write three lines of code. In Zapier, you use Formatter steps or Webhooks and hope it works.
On top of that, n8n has a built-in credential manager that stores API keys encrypted, an execution log where you can see exactly what happened in each run, and an error workflow you can configure to automatically send alerts on failures. These are production features you need when you deploy automation seriously.
When Zapier or Make is the better choice
If a client already has a working Zapier setup with 10-20 flows, it's rarely worth migrating. We build new, more complex flows in n8n and leave the existing Zapier flows in place. Migration costs time and introduces risk without adding value.
We use Make (formerly Integromat) when the client wants a visual no-code tool they can maintain themselves, without the technical threshold of n8n. Make's interface is more intuitive for non-technical users and their scenario builder is more visually appealing. For simple 3-5 step flows that the client wants to adjust themselves, Make is a solid choice.
Costs side by side
For an average SME project with 5-10 active workflows: Zapier costs 800 to 1,200 euros per year. n8n self-hosted costs 240 to 600 euros per year in hosting. Make falls in between at 400 to 800 euros per year. The difference isn't in tool costs, but in what you can build with them. And there, n8n wins hands down.
The real cost calculation is: how much time does it take to build, debug, and maintain a flow? For simple flows, it's comparable across all three tools. For complex flows, n8n saves dozens of hours per year in workarounds, debugging, and maintenance. Those hours are more expensive than the difference in license costs.
