Learn · Comparison

    n8n vs Zapier vs Make.

    Engineering-led comparison from AISD's production experience shipping all three. Honest tradeoffs. Decision rules at the end.

    Updated · 2026-05-04 · 7 min read

    Side-by-side

    Eight factors. Three platforms.

    Factorn8nZapierMake
    HostingSelf-hosted or cloudCloud onlyCloud only
    Pricing modelPer workflow execution; flat fees on cloudPer task; expensive at volumePer operation (often 3–5× cheaper than Zapier at scale)
    Integrations400+ built-in + custom HTTP7,000+1,000+
    Custom codeJavaScript or Python nodesLimited (formatter, code step)JavaScript step (basic)
    BranchingVisual + programmatic, sub-workflowsPaths (basic)Visual router with multi-path filters
    Iteration / arraysNative loops + sub-workflowsAwkward — needs Zap chain workaroundsNative iterators + aggregators
    AI integrationFirst-class (LangChain nodes, vector DB)Native ChatGPT + custom HTTP for othersNative OpenAI + HTTP for others
    Best forEngineer-led production workflowsQuick wins, non-engineer maintenanceMid-complexity flows + cost-sensitive scale

    Decision rules

    Four rules AISD uses to choose.

    01

    Pick Zapier when…

    The flow is under 5 steps, mostly orchestrating popular SaaS tools, and a non-engineer (marketing / ops / sales) will maintain it. Speed-to-ship matters more than per-execution cost.

    02

    Pick Make when…

    Complex branching, array processing, or visual error handling matters — and cost at scale rules out Zapier. Mid-complexity flows that benefit from canvas visualization.

    03

    Pick n8n when…

    An engineering team will own it. Production-grade volume (thousands of executions / hour). Self-hosting is a hard requirement (compliance, data sovereignty, cost). Custom code nodes are needed.

    04

    Pick custom (TS / Python) when…

    Volume is very high, latency is critical, and the team can amortize the engineering investment. Or when the workflow is fundamentally domain-specific and doesn't benefit from a general orchestrator.

    Common mistakes we see

    Three patterns that cost teams real money.

    • Building production workloads on Zapier without monitoring cost. Per-task pricing compounds; teams discover thousand-dollar monthly bills only after they've made the platform load-bearing.
    • Reaching for n8n when Make would have been simpler. n8n's flexibility is real, but if your team won't self-host and the workflow doesn't need custom code, Make ships faster.
    • Avoiding all three "to keep things simple" by writing custom integrations. You re-build retry logic, observability, and credential management — none of which you wanted to own. Use the platform unless volume genuinely justifies custom.

    Frequently asked

    Common questions.

    • When should I use n8n vs Zapier vs Make?

      Zapier wins on simplicity and breadth — 6,000+ integrations, near-zero learning curve, good for marketers and non-engineers. Pricing scales aggressively with volume. Make wins on visual orchestration of medium-complexity flows — better than Zapier on conditional logic, cheaper at volume. n8n wins on engineer-grade workflows, self-hosting, custom code nodes, and AI-native features. Default rule: Zapier for <5 step flows owned by non-engineers, Make for medium complexity, n8n for engineer-owned production workflows.

    • How do you secure workflow automations against prompt injection?

      Five layers. Input sanitization — strip or quarantine instruction-like text from user-controlled fields. Privilege separation — agents that read untrusted content cannot directly call high-privilege tools. Tool-call confirmation — high-stakes actions require human approval or a separate verification step. Output validation — every tool call's arguments validated against a strict schema; anomalies fail closed. Adversarial test suite — a CI test set of known prompt-injection attacks runs on every release.

    • Should I use n8n, LangGraph, or build from scratch?

      It depends on workflow shape and team. n8n wins when the agent is mostly orchestrating SaaS tools and the control flow is straightforward — deploys faster, easier for non-engineers to maintain. LangGraph wins when the agent has complex branching, multi-agent coordination, or needs tight Python integration with custom code. From scratch wins for simple, high-volume agents where every layer of abstraction is overhead.

    • How does pricing work — fixed-price, T&M, or retainer?

      All three. Fixed-price for AI MVPs and agent builds where scope is well-defined after a discovery sprint. Time-and-materials for staff augmentation, billed monthly with a not-to-exceed ceiling. Retainer for ongoing optimization, eval-harness operations, and managed AI services — flat monthly fee for a defined scope of capacity.

    • What does it cost to build an AI agent?

      A production AI agent at AISD typically costs $40,000–$150,000 depending on complexity. Drivers: number of integrated systems, evaluation rigor required, compliance overhead, and ongoing operational scope. Prototypes alone are cheaper ($10k–$25k) but rarely worth it without a path to production.

    • How do you ensure AI features are reliable in production?

      Five layers: an offline eval harness with golden test sets run on every PR; confidence thresholds and structured-output validation that gate downstream side effects; runtime observability — every model call logged with inputs, outputs, latency, cost; circuit breakers and deterministic fallbacks for every model dependency; and a weekly review ritual where prompt regressions get caught before they become incidents.

    • How is AISD different from a typical software development agency?

      Three differences. First, every AISD engineer is senior — minimum 5 years building production software, with shipped AI features. Second, we publish hourly engagement bands and project ranges so you know roughly what an engagement costs before the first call. Third, we take fewer concurrent projects so a partner stays close to delivery.

    • How is AI consulting different from AI development?

      Consulting produces decisions and plans; development produces working software. AISD does both, often in sequence: a consulting engagement scopes the architecture and roadmap, then a build engagement implements it. Consulting alone is right when you're early in the AI journey, evaluating vendors, or auditing existing work. Build alone is right when scope is already clear. Most AISD customers do a 2-week paid discovery sprint first — that's a consulting engagement that produces a fixed-price build proposal.

    Next step

    30-minute call. We'll pick the right platform — honestly.

    No vendor commissions, no platform agnosticism theater. We'll recommend n8n, Zapier, Make, or custom based on your actual workload.