Make.com vs n8n vs Claude Code: 2026 Comparison

Choosing the right automation tool can mean the difference between spending $20 a month and $0—but the cheapest option isn't always the best fit. And with AI agents changing the game, there's now a third path that most comparison guides don't even mention.

I've spent the last few months running all three of these tools through their paces, and I want to share what I've learned. Whether you're looking for a visual workflow builder, an open-source powerhouse, or an AI-native approach to automation, there's a clear winner depending on your situation.

Let's go ahead and jump into it.

TL;DR: Quick Decision Matrix

Before we get into the details, here's the bottom line:

Now let's break down what each of these actually means in practice.

Make.com: The Visual Workflow Builder

If you've used Make.com (formerly Integromat), you know why it's popular. The drag-and-drop interface is genuinely intuitive, and you can see exactly what your automation is doing at every step.

Pricing Structure

Make charges per credit, and as of August 2025, they transitioned from operations to a credits-based billing system. Most actions still cost 1 credit, but AI modules can consume more based on tokens or file size.

Here's the current breakdown:

• Free: 1,000 credits/month (good for testing, not much else)
• Core: $9/month for 10,000 credits
• Pro: $16/month with priority execution and custom variables

Here's the thing: every module execution counts as a credit. If you have a workflow that triggers, fetches data, transforms it, and sends it somewhere—that's already 4 credits for a single run. Run that 100 times a day, and you're burning through 12,000 credits a month on just one workflow.

The good news? As of 2026, unused credits now roll over for one month on paid plans. That alone saves $50-100/month for seasonal businesses.

Strengths

Make really shines in a few areas:

• 2,800+ pre-built integrations - If an app exists, Make probably connects to it. That includes Canva, ManyChat, Buffer, and Etsy—services that aren't available on n8n.
• Visual clarity - You can literally see your data flowing through the workflow. For debugging and explaining automations to your team, this is huge.
• Low barrier to entry - Non-technical team members can build and modify workflows without writing code.

Make also introduced AI Agents in 2025, which lets you provide plain-language instructions instead of mapping every decision path. It's a step in the right direction, but still operates within Make's scenario framework.

Limitations

The cost structure becomes problematic as you scale. Complex workflows with branching logic, loops, or high-volume data processing can balloon your monthly bill faster than you'd expect.

One thing to watch: Make charges for attempted credits, not just successful outcomes. If a bug causes a loop to fail 1,000 times overnight, you wake up to a drained account.

Also, no self-hosting option. Your workflows run in Make's cloud, period. For businesses with strict data residency requirements, that's a dealbreaker.

n8n: The Open-Source Powerhouse

n8n is what happens when developers build an automation tool for developers. It's open-source, self-hostable, and designed for complex, production-grade workflows.

Pricing Structure

This is where n8n gets interesting. They charge per workflow execution, not per operation. A 200-step workflow counts as one execution. Run it once, pay for one execution—regardless of how many nodes are inside.

Their current cloud plans:

• Starter: $20/month for 2,500 executions (billed annually)
• Pro: $50/month for 10,000 executions (billed annually)
• Business: $800/month for 40,000 executions with advanced security

But here's the real power move: the Community Edition is completely free to self-host. Unlimited executions, unlimited workflows, unlimited users. You pay only for your server costs—typically $5-20/month on a VPS.

I've talked to teams running 50,000+ workflow executions a month on a single $20 VPS. Try doing that on Make without a four-figure monthly bill.

AI-Native Capabilities

This is where n8n pulls ahead significantly. They've built nearly 70 AI-specific nodes, including:

• LangChain integration - Build sophisticated AI chains with memory, tools, and retrieval
• RAG systems - Retrieval-Augmented Generation for working with your own data
• AI agents - Connect GPT-4 or Claude to selected tools and let the AI decide which to use
• Vector databases - Native connections to Pinecone, Supabase, and more

The AI capabilities aren't an afterthought—they're woven into the platform's architecture. If you're building automations that need to make intelligent decisions, n8n is currently ahead of the visual builder competition.

Strengths

• Execution-based pricing - Complex workflows don't multiply your costs
• Self-hosting option - Complete control over your data and infrastructure
• Built-in JavaScript editor - Write custom logic on any plan
• Active community - 40,000+ members and direct access to n8n staff

Limitations

The interface has a steeper learning curve. It's functional and clean, but less polished than Make's visual experience. And with around 1,000 integrations compared to Make's 2,800+, you may find yourself building custom HTTP connections more often.

Also worth noting: the self-hosted Business plan introduced per-execution fees and created paywalls for features like SSO and Git integration that growing teams often need.

Claude Code: The AI-Native Approach

Now here's where things get really interesting. Claude Code represents a fundamentally different approach to automation. Instead of clicking through a visual builder, you describe what you want in plain English and let AI write the code.

I've been using this for building custom integrations, and it's changed how I think about automation entirely.

How It Works

Claude Code operates directly in your terminal as an autonomous AI agent. You can:

• Describe a workflow in natural language
• Have it write Python, JavaScript, or any integration code you need
• Debug and refine through conversation
• Deploy to your own infrastructure

The difference? You're not limited to pre-built integrations. If something has an API, Claude Code can connect to it. If your workflow requires custom logic that would take 50 nodes in Make, Claude Code might solve it in 20 lines of code.

This is similar to what I've seen with tools like Manus for data analysis—the ability for AI to actually write and execute code opens up possibilities that visual builders simply can't match.

Pricing Structure

Claude Code pricing works a bit differently than the others:

• Pro subscription: $20/month (or $17/month billed annually) gets you access to Claude Code with rate limits
• Max subscription: From $100/month for heavy users who need 5x-20x more usage than Pro
• API-based: Pay per token if you're building applications ($3-5 per million input tokens depending on model)

The key insight: once Claude Code writes your automation scripts, you own that code. Deploy it anywhere, run it as often as you want—no per-execution fees, no monthly caps on runs. Your only ongoing cost is hosting, typically $5-20/month on a basic server.

Strengths

• Unlimited flexibility - Not constrained by pre-built nodes or integrations
• One-time development cost - Write it once, run it forever without per-execution fees
• Superior reasoning - Claude handles complex logic and edge cases that would require extensive branching in visual tools
• Full code ownership - You own the code, host it anywhere, modify it anytime

I saw one case where a Google engineer used Claude Code to generate a distributed agent orchestration system in 60 minutes—a problem their team had been working on for months. That's the kind of capability gap we're talking about.

Limitations

You need some technical comfort. Not necessarily coding expertise, but willingness to work in a terminal and understand basic programming concepts. This isn't a click-and-drag solution.

Also, there's upfront development time. Visual builders let you ship something in an hour. Claude Code might take a few hours to build something more sophisticated, but the result is more flexible and cost-effective at scale.

Heavy users should also be aware that Anthropic introduced weekly rate limits in August 2025 specifically for Claude Code to manage infrastructure load.

Head-to-Head Comparisons

Ease of Use

Make wins for pure accessibility. If you've never automated anything, Make's visual interface will get you productive in hours. n8n requires more learning but pays off with flexibility. Claude Code requires the most technical comfort but offers the most power.

Cost at Scale

Let me run through a real scenario. Say you need to process 10,000 items per month through a 5-step workflow:

• Make.com: 50,000 credits = likely $50-100/month on higher plans
• n8n Cloud: 10,000 executions = $50/month on Pro
• n8n Self-hosted: ~$15/month for server costs
• Claude Code: One-time development, then ~$10-15/month hosting

n8n self-hosted and Claude Code tie for cost-effectiveness at high volume. Claude Code eliminates per-execution costs entirely once your solution is built.

AI Capabilities

Claude Code wins here—it IS AI, not a tool with AI features bolted on. You're not connecting to an AI node; the AI is building and orchestrating your entire workflow.

n8n comes second with its comprehensive 70+ AI node library and deep LangChain integration. If you want visual control over AI workflows, n8n is the strongest option.

Make's AI modules are functional but limited compared to what you can build with the other two.

Integration Ecosystem

Make wins for breadth of pre-built connections. If you need Canva + ManyChat + Etsy in one workflow, Make has you covered out of the box.

n8n is catching up with 1,000+ integrations, and Claude Code can connect to anything with an API—but both require more setup work than Make's click-and-connect approach.

Which Tool Should You Choose?

After running all three through their paces, here's my take:

Choose Make.com if:

• You're new to automation and want the fastest path to results
• Your team is non-technical and needs to modify workflows independently
• You need specific integrations that only Make supports (Canva, Etsy, ManyChat)
• Your workflows are relatively simple and volume is low-to-moderate

Choose n8n if:

• You have technical resources and want cost-effective scaling
• Data privacy and self-hosting are important to your business
• You're building AI-powered automations with complex decision logic
• Your workflows involve high volume or complex data transformations
• You want the power of code (JavaScript) within a visual builder

Choose Claude Code if:

• You're building custom solutions that don't fit into pre-built templates
• You want to eliminate ongoing per-execution costs entirely
• Your automations require sophisticated logic or AI reasoning
• You're comfortable working with code (or willing to learn)
• You need something that doesn't exist as a pre-built integration

The Strategic Progression

Here's something I've been recommending to clients: start with Make for simple automations and learning the basics. As you hit scaling costs or complexity limits, migrate those workflows to n8n. For truly custom solutions or AI-heavy workflows, leverage Claude Code to build exactly what you need.

This isn't either/or. I currently use all three depending on the problem I'm solving.

FAQ

Q: Can I migrate from Make to n8n easily?

There's no automatic migration, but the concepts translate well. A workflow you built in Make can typically be recreated in n8n in an afternoon, often with better performance and lower cost.

Q: Is n8n really free to self-host?

Yes, the Community Edition is genuinely free with unlimited executions and workflows. You pay for your own server hosting (typically $5-20/month), but there are no license fees or per-execution charges.

Q: How does Claude Code compare to GitHub Copilot?

Copilot is primarily an autocomplete tool. Claude Code operates as an autonomous agent—it can understand entire codebases, execute multi-step tasks, and maintain context across complex projects. They serve different purposes.

Q: Which has the best support?

Make offers ticket-based support. n8n has an active community forum with 40K+ members and direct staff involvement. Claude Code has comprehensive documentation and Anthropic's growing support resources.

Q: Can non-developers use Claude Code?

With some learning, yes. The natural language interface means you can describe what you want without knowing exact syntax. But you'll need basic comfort with terminals and willingness to iterate on solutions.

Q: What about data security?

Make runs entirely in their cloud—no self-hosting option. n8n offers full self-hosting for complete data control. Claude Code processes through Anthropic's API but the code you generate runs on your own infrastructure.

Ready to Automate Your Business?

Each of these tools has its place. The key is matching the right tool to your specific situation, technical resources, and scale requirements.

If you're not sure where to start, we can help you evaluate your automation needs and choose the right approach. Whether that's setting up Make scenarios, deploying n8n on your infrastructure, or building custom solutions with AI—we've implemented all three for our clients.

Check out our automation services or explore our deep dive on Make.com if you're ready to get started.

That's all I got for now. Until next time.