Tool comparison
Make vs n8n vs Zapier for AI Automation
Compare Make, n8n and Zapier by usage unit, hosting model, AI/MCP capabilities and the kind of team that will maintain the workflows.
At a glance
Facts for each tool. The evidence column shows whether we ran this comparison on the tool or relied on its documentation.
| Tool | Best for | Pricing model | Free tier | Evidence | Verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Make | Teams that want to build multi-step automations visually and are comfortable with credit-based billing per module action. | Free tier + paid | Yes | Documented | Oct 3, 2026 |
| n8n | Teams that want to build workflows and agents with code and a canvas, and may want to self-host under a source-available licence. | Free tier + paid | Yes | Documented | Oct 3, 2026 |
| Zapier | Teams that want to connect many business apps with hosted workflows and are comfortable with per-task billing. | Free tier + paid | Yes | Documented | Oct 3, 2026 |
How we compared
- Billing unit. Compared from official documentation.
- Hosting. Compared from official documentation.
- AI and MCP. Compared from official documentation.
- Maintenance fit. Compared from official documentation.
We did not run these tasks ourselves.
We publish evidence, not star ratings. Order and labels follow the criteria above and are not influenced by affiliate links or sponsorship.Full review methodology ·Affiliate disclosure
Task-by-task results
What happened on each task, and where to see the evidence.
| Task | Outcome | Winner | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Make counts credits, normally around module actions but with variable-credit modules. n8n counts a complete workflow execution. Zapier counts successful actions as tasks, with documented exceptions. | — | — |
| Hosting | n8n documents cloud and self-hosted options under its licence terms. Make and Zapier are hosted services in the product paths reviewed. | — | — |
| AI and MCP | All three document AI-agent capabilities and MCP support, but MCP role, availability and billing differ. A feature name does not make the implementations equivalent. | — | — |
| Maintenance fit | n8n combines a canvas with code, Make centres on visual scenarios, and Zapier centres on hosted app automations. Anavem did not test build time or operational reliability. | — | — |
Evidence from our testing
We have not run these tools ourselves. This comparison is based on official documentation; see the sources below. How we label evidence.
Verdict (our assessment)
Choose n8n when self-hosting or workflow-level execution billing outweighs the extra technical ownership. Choose Make when a detailed visual scenario model fits the operators maintaining the automations. Choose Zapier when the hosted app ecosystem and straightforward business-app workflow model matter most.
Do not compare only subscription prices. Model one representative workflow in each vendor's own usage unit, including loops, AI steps, MCP calls and agent activities.
Which one to choose
Choose Make if…
Choose Make when visual scenario building is the main operating model and the team can estimate module and variable-credit use.
Choose n8n if…
Choose n8n when self-hosting, code inside workflows or execution-level billing are decisive and the team can own the infrastructure and licence constraints.
Choose Zapier if…
Choose Zapier when a broad hosted integration catalogue and successful-action task model best match the team, after accounting for agent and MCP usage.
Go to the tools
Sources
- Make creditsaccessed
- Make MCP serveraccessed
- n8n pricingaccessed
- n8n community licenceaccessed
- Zapier task usageaccessed
- Zapier MCPaccessed
Related
Make
Visual automation platform for scenarios and AI agents, billed in credits
Verified Oct 3, 2026
n8n
Workflow and AI agent platform, hosted by n8n or self-hosted, billed per execution
Verified Oct 3, 2026
Zapier
Workflow automation connecting apps, with Agents and MCP, billed per task
Verified Oct 3, 2026
Best AI Automation Platforms for Teams
Make, n8n and Zapier compared by billing unit, hosting model, agent/MCP support and maintainability, using current vendor documentation.
Verified Oct 3, 2026