The three platforms, in one line each
- Zapier — the simplest to start with, the widest library of pre-built app connections, priced per task consumed. Best for straightforward, lower-volume automations you want live today.
- Make (formerly Integromat) — a visual, module-based workflow builder that handles more branching logic and complexity than Zapier before things get unwieldy, priced per operation consumed. A middle ground.
- n8n — open-source, can be self-hosted or run on n8n's cloud, prices by workflow execution rather than individual task/operation, and handles the most complex, highest-volume workflows without the cost scaling as aggressively.
The pricing model difference actually matters more than the feature list
Zapier and Make both charge based on consumption — tasks or operations used per billing cycle — which is fine at low volume and can get expensive fast once a workflow runs thousands of times a month across multiple steps. n8n's execution-based pricing (on its cloud tier) or self-hosted option removes that scaling problem: a self-hosted n8n instance has a fixed server cost regardless of how many times a workflow runs, which is the reason we move high-volume clients to it once Zapier or Make's bill starts tracking with growth rather than staying flat.
Complexity ceiling: where each platform starts to strain
Zapier's strength — simplicity — becomes its limit once a workflow needs real branching logic, loops, or custom code steps; it's built for linear "when X happens, do Y" chains. Make's visual builder handles branching and more complex data transformation comfortably, and covers most Malaysian SME needs without hitting a wall. n8n goes further still — custom JavaScript/Python code nodes, complex conditional logic, and self-hosted control over exactly how a workflow executes — which is overkill for a simple lead-notification flow but the right tool once a build genuinely needs that depth.
Who maintains it
Make and Zapier are fully managed — no server, no updates to apply, the vendor handles uptime. n8n's cloud tier is also managed, but self-hosted n8n means someone (us, on a support retainer, or your own team) is responsible for the server, updates and uptime. This is the real trade-off behind n8n's cost advantage at scale: you're not paying a SaaS vendor's margin, but you are taking on infrastructure responsibility that Make and Zapier absorb for you.
How we actually choose, per client
Low-volume, straightforward automation (a lead notification, a simple CRM update) — Zapier, because the fastest path to live beats platform depth nobody needs yet. Moderate complexity with room to grow — Make, because its visual builder handles more branching without the self-hosting overhead. High-volume or genuinely complex multi-system workflows — n8n, usually self-hosted, because the pricing model stops punishing scale. This is a technical judgment call based on your actual volume, budget and existing stack, not a fixed house preference — see our AI automation service for how this gets scoped.
Where AI fits into any of the three
All three platforms can call an AI model as one step in a workflow — the platform choice is about how the workflow executes and scales, not whether AI drafting or classification is possible. See our AI automation overview for the drafting-and-approval pattern that usually sits inside these workflows, regardless of which platform runs them.
What to do about it
- Estimate your actual monthly execution volume before choosing a platform — this drives the pricing-model decision more than any feature comparison.
- Map the workflow's branching complexity — a simple linear chain fits Zapier; real conditional logic points toward Make or n8n.
- Decide whether you want to own infrastructure maintenance (n8n self-hosted) or have a vendor absorb it (Zapier, Make, n8n cloud).
- Don't over-provision — starting on n8n for a simple, low-volume workflow adds complexity you don't need yet.