Quick answer
Built for technical teams with the skills to host their own infrastructure and keep it maintained. It delivers full control over code and data, with predictable cost per workflow execution.
For less technical teams: build automations visually in a drag and drop editor. It gets powerful for those who invest time in routers, iterators and error handling — but per-credit pricing can make complex flows expensive.
Tip: estimate how many executions or credits your team would consume per month — that is the variable that weighs most on the final cost between the two platforms.
What is the difference between Make and n8n?
Check the 13 criteria comparing the tools side by side.
| Criterion | n8n | Make |
|---|---|---|
| Hosting model | Self-hosted or Cloud | Cloud only |
| Free plan | Unlimited self-hosted | 1,000 credits/month (2 scenarios) |
| Server setup | Required (self-hosted) | No (runs in the cloud) |
| Entry paid price | €24/mo (cloud Starter) | US$ 9/mo (Core) |
| Pricing model | Per workflow execution | Per credit (each action = 1 credit) |
| Visual interface | Partial | Block-based editor |
| Number of integrations | ~400 native | 3,000+ native |
| Portuguese interface | English only | Partial (BR materials available) |
| Portuguese support | Community (English) | English |
| Native BR apps | Limited | Moderate (only the big ones) |
| Learning curve | High | Medium |
| Code customization | Native JavaScript | Limited |
| Open-source | Yes (Community Edition) | No |
Is your team non-technical and your apps Brazilian? Maybe neither one is the best option.
Meet PlugaWhat are n8n and Make?
n8n and Make (formerly Integromat) are tool-integration platforms with similarities and differences. n8n can be used either open-source or in the cloud; with Make, everything runs in the cloud only.
Note: this does not mean Make is worse than n8n. They are simply different strategies aimed at different audiences.
Explaining the more technical criteria
Didn't get the concepts? Pluga breaks it down for you:
n8n and Make are generic workflow-automation platforms aimed at the global market. One alternative is Pluga, an integration platform focused on the Brazilian ecosystem — from basic integrations to the most advanced use case, with Portuguese-language support and pricing in reais.
Meet Pluga →Strengths and limitations of n8n and Make
Strengths
- +Free, unlimited executions when self-hosted.
- +Open-source with full control over data and code.
- +Predictable billing per flow run, not per step.
Limitations
- −Requires your own server, Docker and technical maintenance.
- −Expensive Cloud version with no free plan (from €24/mo).
- −Almost no native integrations with Brazilian apps.
Strengths
- +Intuitive visual interface (great for non-technical users).
- +Over 3,000 integrations (including major BR systems).
- +Very affordable entry paid plan (US$ 9/mo).
Limitations
- −Per-action/step billing that burns credits very fast.
- −Complex flows raise the bill easily.
- −No self-hosted install option (cloud only).
When to use each one
Use n8n when…
- •There is a developer to set up and maintain the server.
- •Automation volume is high and cost needs to be predictable.
- •Data privacy demands your own infrastructure.
- •Flows require complex logic with JavaScript code.
Use Make when…
- •The team is not technical and needs to start fast.
- •The visual interface makes review with other teams easier.
- •Monthly credit volume is predictable and controllable.
- •There is no interest in managing infrastructure.
Use another alternative when…
- •Your team is not technical and needs Portuguese-language support.
- •Your tools are Brazilian (Conta Azul, RD Station, PipeRun, PagSeguro…).
- •You want billing in reais and a free plan with no time limit.
- •You do not want to worry about servers and have no in-house DevOps.
