Why should I switch from Make.com to n8n?

n8n provides more control, is open-source, and allows self-hosting. It’s ideal for businesses that outgrow Make’s limitations or require secure deployments.

Is migrating from Make to n8n difficult?

It depends on the complexity of your workflows. Simple scenarios can be rebuilt in hours, while complex logic may need testing and incremental rollout. Scalevise offers migration support.

Can I run Make and n8n in parallel?

Yes. You can duplicate a flow in n8n, test it in parallel, and then deactivate the original in Make.com once validated.

From Make.com to n8n: A Practical Workflow Migration Guide

3 min read

From Make.com to n8n

Why Companies Are Moving from Make to n8n

Make.com (formerly Integromat) has long been a go-to tool for building powerful automations with a visual interface. However, as companies scale and require more flexibility, transparency, and self-hosting capabilities, n8n is gaining traction as a developer-friendly alternative.

Reasons why teams are migrating:

Vendor lock-in concerns with Make.com’s pricing model
More control through n8n’s open-source architecture
On-premise hosting options for privacy-sensitive workflows
Unlimited tasks and custom node development in n8n
Better Git/versioning integrations for DevOps teams

Key Technical Considerations Before Migrating

Before switching, it’s important to assess:

API behavior differences: Make uses a scenario-run structure, while n8n offers node-by-node executions and context retention
Authentication setup: Make uses centralized modules; n8n often requires manual OAuth or header configuration
Rate limits: n8n gives full control over throttling and retries
Error handling: n8n provides finer control through IF branches, error nodes, and conditional logic
Execution logging: Make has detailed logs per module; n8n supports JSON-level inspection and retry logic

Example Migration: Lead Capture and Enrichment Flow

Make.com version:

Webhook receives form submission
HTTP module fetches enrichment data
Router splits based on lead score
Gmail module sends notification
Airtable saves the lead

n8n version:

Webhook node receives form input
HTTP node calls enrichment API
IF node checks score threshold
Gmail node sends email if valid
Airtable node inserts row

The core logic is the same but with n8n, you get complete control over each decision point and can self-host the entire operation.

Migration Strategy: Step-by-Step

Audit existing Make scenarios: Identify mission-critical flows
Group modules by function: This helps plan nodes in n8n
Replicate structure in n8n: Rebuild workflows incrementally
Test inputs and outputs: Use mock data and monitor edge cases
Deploy gradually: Run in parallel before full switchover

Understanding the Core Differences Between Make.com and n8n

To migrate effectively, it's essential to understand how both platforms fundamentally operate. While Make.com emphasizes visual simplicity and modularity, n8n is designed for flexibility, extensibility, and developer-level control.

1. Workflow Philosophy

Make.com structures automations into “scenarios” linear flows that execute from top to bottom. Each module represents a step, and execution follows a fixed path unless rerouted via routers.

n8n, on the other hand, uses node-based execution graphs. Every node passes context (input/output), and you can build highly dynamic branches, loops, error paths, and trigger chains.

2. Hosting & Privacy

One of the biggest differentiators is where your automation runs.

Make.com is cloud-only. You have no control over the environment, performance throttling, or where your data is processed.
n8n can be self-hosted, deployed on-premises or in your own cloud, giving you full control over logs, storage, uptime, and compliance (e.g. GDPR, HIPAA).

This is especially relevant for industries handling sensitive customer, financial, or health data.

3. Developer Experience

Make is excellent for marketers, project managers, and non-technical teams who want quick wins.

n8n is preferred by technical teams that need:

Git-based versioning
CLI deployment pipelines
Secrets management
Dynamic looped execution
Webhook security (e.g. header validation, HMAC)
Integrated test/debug environments

You also gain access to custom node development with JavaScript/TypeScript for when standard modules aren't enough.

4. Cost Structure

Make.com charges per operation and scenario complexity. This can become expensive for high-frequency tasks like logging, monitoring, or AI-triggered flows.

n8n’s open-source license (with unlimited tasks) makes it predictable and scalable especially for teams processing tens of thousands of records per day.

5. Monitoring and Debugging

Make offers visual logs per module but limited control over retry logic or parallel execution states.

n8n lets you inspect each node's input/output in JSON, offers retry nodes, and supports conditional forks for granular error resolution.

Whether you're a startup scaling your backend or a mature company needing to reduce SaaS dependency, understanding these differences is key before committing to migration.

Should You Move All Workflows?

Not necessarily. Consider keeping small marketing or one-off automations in Make if they’re working fine. But for:

Internal ops
AI agents
High-frequency processes
Privacy-sensitive data flows

you may want to standardize on n8n.

Final Thoughts

Moving from Make to n8n is not about abandoning a platform it's about choosing a long-term foundation that scales with your needs. n8n offers extensibility, transparency, and full autonomy.

If you want help designing or rebuilding your automation stack in n8n, Scalevise offers migration support for businesses ready to scale automation on their own terms.