n8n vs Zapier vs Make vs Custom Code: Which One Should Run Your Business Automation?

Zapier, Make and n8n all promise the same thing: connect your apps and let the boring work run itself. They are not the same product, and the difference that matters most is not on their homepages. It is what each one charges you for.

Zapier charges per action. Make charges per module. n8n charges per run. That sounds like fine print until a workflow grows from three steps to twelve, and one tool's bill quadruples while another's stays flat.

This guide compares the three on cost, ease and control, works the same workflow through each one, and then covers the question most comparisons skip: when should you use none of them and write custom code? The honest caveat first: prices change, and these are the prices on Zapier's and n8n's own pricing pages as of October 2026. Make does not publish prices on its public pricing page, so for Make I explain how it bills and give a range rather than pretend to an exact number. Check each page before you commit.

Where I have an opinion, it comes from building automations for clients at Logical Dottech, including one where the client insisted on n8n and we ended up using it for half the job. That story is further down.

The short answer

The rest of this guide explains why, so you can check the answer against your own workflows.

How each tool bills you

This is the part that decides your bill, so it is worth getting exactly right.

One extra detail from Zapier's page: its tasks are a single pool shared across automations, AI by Zapier and Code by Zapier, and a Zapier MCP tool call uses two tasks. If AI agents are part of your plan, read that pool carefully.

What they cost: the entry plans

Two things to notice. Zapier's yearly price is a third lower than its monthly price, so the plan you see first is the yearly one. And if you go over your task limit with pay-per-task switched on, Zapier's page says overage is billed at 2.5 times the base rate on monthly plans and 1.25 times on yearly plans.

The same workflow on each tool

Here is a workflow almost every service business needs, the same one that tops my list of tasks to automate: a lead fills the website form, the details go into the CRM, the lead gets a reply email, and the team gets a Slack message. One trigger, three actions. Say 500 leads a month.

Now add an AI step that writes a personal reply, a lookup to check whether the lead is already a customer, a filter for spam, a second Slack channel for big jobs, and a follow-up two days later. That is a realistic version of the same workflow, and it is ten steps instead of four.

On Zapier the ten-step version uses roughly three times the tasks of the four-step one. On Make, roughly two and a half times the credits. On n8n, it is still one execution per lead. That single difference explains most of the n8n vs Zapier arguments you will read online. For short workflows it barely matters. For long, busy ones it is most of the bill.

Zapier and Make charge for steps. n8n charges for runs. Count your steps before you pick.

Zapier: the easiest to start, the priciest per step

Zapier is the tool to give someone who has never built an automation. You pick a trigger app, pick an action, map a few fields, and it runs. It connects to the widest range of business apps of the three, and for a simple two- or three-step job it is hard to beat.

• •Best for: non-technical owners, simple linear automations, apps that only Zapier connects to.
• •Watch out for: cost per step on long or busy workflows, the shared task pool if you also use its AI features, and overage rates if you leave pay-per-task on.
• •Free plan: real but small. 100 tasks and two-step Zaps only, so it is a trial more than a plan.

Make: visual and cheaper per step

Make shows your workflow as a map of connected circles, with branches, loops and error handling you can see. It takes an afternoon longer to learn than Zapier and gives you far more control for the money. Routers and error handlers are free, which rewards building workflows properly instead of cutting corners.

• •Best for: branching workflows, people who think visually, moderate volume on a tight budget.
• •Watch out for: credit use climbing with every module, AI modules using more than one credit, and loops over long lists that burn credits per item.
• •Free plan: 1,000 credits a month, enough to build and test properly.

n8n: flat pricing, self-hosting and code when you need it

n8n looks like Make, a canvas of connected nodes, but it bills per run and you can host it yourself. It also lets you drop into JavaScript or Python inside a workflow, which removes the wall you eventually hit in pure no-code tools.

Self-hosting is where people get the licence wrong. The Community Edition is free and self-hosted, under n8n's Sustainable Use License. That licence lets you use or modify n8n for your own internal business purposes, or for non-commercial or personal use. You may give it to others only free of charge for non-commercial purposes. In plain terms: running it for your own business is fine. Building a paid product where your customers use n8n as the service is not, without a commercial licence from n8n.

• •Best for: long or high-volume workflows, teams with someone technical, businesses that want data on their own server.
• •Watch out for: self-hosting means you own updates, backups and security. Some features are only on paid plans, and Business is self-hosted at 667 euros a month on yearly billing.
• •Free option: Community Edition, self-hosted. Your cost is the server and your time.

When none of them fit: custom code

All three tools are built for background work. Something happens, steps run, done. None of them gives your customers or staff a login, a screen to use, or memory between runs. The moment your automation needs any of those, you are building an app, and the workflow tool becomes a second system you maintain next to it.

A real example: the client who wanted n8n

A French real estate firm hired us to build a lead system. Every night it watches official public business notices and finds companies their advisors should call. The client asked for n8n, and the reasons were good ones: open source, self-hosted, no vendor lock-in, low running costs, and the ability to change the criteria himself.

For the nightly pipeline, collect the notices, filter them, remove duplicates, push to the CRM, n8n fit well. But the product they actually wanted had more: a chat where advisors type only Bordeaux, only this month and it remembers that, a map, prospect cards, a validation button and an admin console. n8n has no interface for end users, so that app had to be built either way.

Our estimate: about 22 days to build it n8n-first, against about 18 days as a normal web app, because n8n helped with roughly 15 percent of the work and added overhead to the rest. Hosting was a wash, a few euros a month either way. The argument that settled it was simple: using n8n meant building the same app plus maintaining a second system.

What we did: the nightly collection job runs in a workflow tool, which suits it, and the application is ordinary code. The real want, I can change the criteria without calling the developer, became a settings screen where the client ticks regions and notice types. Easier for the client than editing workflow nodes, and nothing can break. The whole system runs for under 20 dollars a month.

Signs you need custom code

• •Customers or staff need to log in and use a screen.
• •The automation needs to remember things between runs, like a conversation or a user's settings.
• •Volume is high enough that per-step pricing is a real line in the budget.
• •The logic has many rules and exceptions that turn a canvas into spaghetti.
• •Facts must come from a strict source and never be invented, such as prices, legal data or medical data. Code makes that rule easy to enforce and test.

Where AI fits in each one

All four can call an AI model for the reading and writing steps: classifying a message, drafting a reply, pulling fields out of an email. The difference is how you pay. Zapier counts AI by Zapier in the same task pool. Make's AI modules can use more than one credit. n8n counts the run once, and you pay the AI provider directly if you bring your own key. Custom code always pays the provider directly, which is usually the cheapest per call.

The rule from my automation guide applies in all four: let AI read and write around facts, never supply them. If you are connecting AI assistants like Claude or ChatGPT to your tools rather than running fixed workflows, that is a different pattern, which I explain in MCP vs APIs.

How to choose in 15 minutes

1. 1.List the three workflows you want first. For each, write the trigger and count the steps.
2. 2.Estimate runs a month. Leads, orders, bookings, whatever starts the workflow.
3. 3.Multiply. Steps times runs gives Zapier tasks and Make credits. Runs alone gives n8n executions.
4. 4.Check who will maintain it. If nobody technical, lean Zapier or Make. If someone can, n8n opens up.
5. 5.Ask the app question. If a person will log in and use it, plan custom code for that part.
6. 6.Start on the free tier of your pick and build the smallest workflow first. Switching early is cheap. Switching after 40 workflows is not.

If you want a second opinion on which way to go, or want the whole thing built and running, that is what my team does. Tell me what you want automated and I will tell you which tool I would use and why.