HASH: 0x1861...9366 SNAPSHOT: 2026-09-06 CORPUS: WORKFLOW AUTOMATION CATEGORY • DIMS V2-5DIM
EMPIRICAL BENCHMARK DOSSIER N=2 ARCHIVED TOOLS • 5 DIMENSIONS

n8n vs Make: Self-hostable automation vs managed visual builder

n8n (fair-code workflow automation with native AI nodes — self-hostable, unlimited users on every cloud plan) and Make (visual automation with 2,000+ app integrations) go head-to-head across AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index — quality, features, usability, performance and value — with every score drawn from published tool archives as of 2026-09-06. Which workflow automation tool should teams standardize on?

workspace_premium AiRecMark Verified Winner

n8n Wins by +0.1 Overall Points

n8n (84.8/100) leads the Airecmark five-dimension composite, taking Feature Depth. Make (84.7/100) stays ahead on Output Quality.

Delta: +0.1 Composite Score n8n Feature Depth Lead: +2 pts Make Output Quality Lead: +1 pts
n8n 84.8
Output Quality84
Feature Depth90
Usability76
Performance84
Value for Money88
Inspect n8n →
Make 84.7
Output Quality85
Feature Depth88
Usability76
Performance84
Value for Money88
Inspect Make →
Archive vectors

5-Axis Differential Engine Performance

n8n
Make
Feature Depth +2.0 pt Lead

n8n takes Feature Depth by 2.0 points (90 vs 88) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

N8N (90)90 / 100
MAKE (88)88 / 100
Output Quality +1.0 pt Lead

Make takes Output Quality by 1.0 points (85 vs 84) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

MAKE (85)85 / 100
N8N (84)84 / 100
Usability Statistically Par

n8n takes Usability by 0.0 points (76 vs 76) on AiRecMark's deterministic five-dimension index.

N8N (76)76 / 100
MAKE (76)76 / 100
Scenario Architecture

Choose Your Workflow Automation Tool by Working Style

Both tools sit near the top of the workflow automation category, but their dimension profiles and pricing models produce clearly distinct working styles.

terminal

Standardize on n8n if...

Optimized for: Engineering-led teams automating workflows with full self-hosting control
  • check_circle Composite lead (84.8/100): tops the Airecmark index against Make (84.7/100) on the archive-recorded five-dimension composite.
  • check_circle Leads Feature Depth (90 vs 88): a 2-point edge on the deterministic index.
  • check_circle Strongest self-host story in the category: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Make.
  • check_circle Unlimited users/workflows — no seat tax: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus Make.
SUBSCRIPTION TIER $20 / mo
Try n8n arrow_forward freemium • from $20/mo • n8n GmbH
speed

Standardize on Make if...

Optimized for: Power users automating multi-step cross-app workflows
  • check_circle Leads Output Quality (85 vs 84): a 1-point edge on the deterministic index.
  • check_circle ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus n8n.
  • check_circle Visual builder with deep branching logic: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus n8n.
  • check_circle Free tier for small scenarios: cited in the Airecmark editorial assessment as a differentiator versus n8n.
SUBSCRIPTION TIER $12 / mo
Try Make arrow_forward freemium • from $12/mo • Make (Celonis)
Empirical Breakdown

5-Axis Benchmark Deep Dive

Dimension scores are drawn from the AiRecMark tool archives (V2-5DIM, as of 2026-09-06) on a 0-100 scale; per-axis winner calls use the higher dimension score with deterministic tie handling.

AXIS 01

Output Quality

Accuracy, depth and reliability of primary outputs
N8N: 8.4 / 10 MAKE: 8.5 / 10 WINNER: MAKE
n8n — Output Quality

n8n posts 84 / 100 on Output Quality. The audit highlights strongest self-host story in the category and unlimited users/workflows — no seat tax as its signature strengths.

Make — Output Quality

Make posts 85 / 100 on Output Quality. The audit highlights ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan and visual builder with deep branching logic as its signature strengths.

AXIS 02

Feature Depth

Breadth, maturity and extensibility of the capability set
N8N: 9 / 10 MAKE: 8.8 / 10 WINNER: N8N
n8n — Feature Depth

n8n posts 90 / 100 on Feature Depth. The audit highlights strongest self-host story in the category and unlimited users/workflows — no seat tax as its signature strengths.

Make — Feature Depth

Make posts 88 / 100 on Feature Depth. The audit highlights ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan and visual builder with deep branching logic as its signature strengths.

AXIS 03

Usability

Onboarding, interface clarity and daily ergonomics
N8N: 7.6 / 10 MAKE: 7.6 / 10 STATISTICAL TIE
n8n — Usability

n8n posts 76 / 100 on Usability. The audit highlights strongest self-host story in the category and unlimited users/workflows — no seat tax as its signature strengths.

Make — Usability

Make posts 76 / 100 on Usability. The audit highlights ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan and visual builder with deep branching logic as its signature strengths.

AXIS 04

Performance

Speed, stability and consistency under production load
N8N: 8.4 / 10 MAKE: 8.4 / 10 STATISTICAL TIE
n8n — Performance

n8n posts 84 / 100 on Performance. The audit highlights strongest self-host story in the category and unlimited users/workflows — no seat tax as its signature strengths.

Make — Performance

Make posts 84 / 100 on Performance. The audit highlights ~13x more volume per dollar vs Zapier's entry plan and visual builder with deep branching logic as its signature strengths.

AXIS 05

Value for Money

Pricing fairness relative to delivered capability
N8N: 8.8 / 10 MAKE: 8.8 / 10 STATISTICAL TIE
n8n — Value for Money

n8n posts 88 / 100 on Value for Money. Published entry pricing: €20 / mo (Starter, annual) · Community free.

Make — Value for Money

Make posts 88 / 100 on Value for Money. Published entry pricing: Core $12 / mo (10k credits) · Free 1k credits.

Feature-by-Feature Matrix

Exhaustive Technical Specification Diff

COMPLIANCE: AIRECMARK EVALUATION PROTOCOL V2.4
Capability / Specification n8n ($20/mo) Make ($12/mo) Deterministic Winner
Overall AirecMark Score
Composite of the five recorded dimensions
84.8 / 100 84.7 / 100 n8n (Composite lead)
Output Quality
Accuracy, depth and reliability of primary outputs
84 / 100 85 / 100 Make (+1 pts)
Feature Depth
Breadth, maturity and extensibility of the capability set
90 / 100 88 / 100 n8n (+2 pts)
Usability
Onboarding, interface clarity and daily ergonomics
76 / 100 76 / 100 Tie (Identical score)
Performance
Speed, stability and consistency under production load
84 / 100 84 / 100 Tie (Identical score)
Value for Money
Pricing fairness relative to delivered capability
88 / 100 88 / 100 Tie (Identical score)
Starting Price
Published entry pricing (USD)
€20 / mo (Starter, annual) · Community free Core $12 / mo (10k credits) · Free 1k credits Make (Lower entry price)
Best For
Documented target audience
Engineering-led teams automating workflows with full self-hosting control Power users automating multi-step cross-app workflows Tie (Use-case dependent)
Engineering Operations

Migration Playbook: Switching Without Friction

Swapping a daily driver mid-project is costly. Follow this three-step checklist to evaluate n8n and Make on equal terms before standardizing your team.

01

Export Config, Prompts & Data

Inventory what each candidate needs: prompt libraries, templates, connected accounts and project files. Export from your current stack first so n8n and Make start from the same baseline.

SETUP: SAME BASELINE
02

Map Pricing to Your Real Usage

Compare published entry tiers against your expected volume. n8n starts at $20/mo (freemium); Make starts at $12/mo (freemium) — model the monthly cost at your actual workload before committing.

ECONOMICS: PUBLISHED TIERS
03

Run a Two-Week Parallel Trial

Run both tools on the same live tasks for ten working days. Score outputs against the five Airecmark dimensions, then let the 0.1-point composite gap — not vendor marketing — decide the standardization call.

balance

Deterministic Evaluation Methodology & Integrity Standard

AiRecMark evaluates every tool against its deterministic five-dimension index (Quality, Features, Usability, Performance, Value) using official documentation, published pricing pages and the published five-dimension rubric. All scores, deltas and winner calls in this dossier are drawn from the published tool archives as of 2026-09-06 and can be traced back to the public tool profiles.

Affiliate Blind Trust Policy: Any referral commissions or partner links generated through AiRecMark are routed into a blind trust utilized exclusively to fund bare-metal compute benchmarks. Zero sponsored placement or ranking distortion is permitted under any circumstances.

BENCHMARK ENGINE: AIRECMARK-DETERMINISTIC-V2.4 SOURCE: DATA/TOOLS/*.JSON
VERDICT SUMMARY