Key takeaways
Zapier and Make charge per task or operation, so your bill scales with how much you automate. That model punishes agencies, which automate a lot.
n8n is self-hostable and priced by execution, not per task, so heavy automation gets cheaper per workflow, not more expensive.
Zapier is the fastest to set up and the easiest to learn, which makes it fine for light, simple automations and bad for high-volume agency delivery.
Make sits in the middle: strong visual builder, more complex logic than Zapier, still cloud-only and still operation-priced.
Choose by pricing model and volume first, then by how custom your workflows need to get. Features are rarely the bottleneck.
The honest one-line answer for agencies
If you are an agency automating repeatable delivery work across many clients, run n8n. The reason is not that it has more integrations or a nicer interface. It is that Zapier and Make bill you more the more you automate, and automating a lot is the entire point of doing this as an agency. n8n breaks that link.
That said, the right answer depends on three things: your volume, whether you can self-host, and how complex your logic gets. Here is the full version.
What each tool actually is
n8n is a workflow automation tool that you can self-host or run on its cloud. It is the most flexible of the three, lets you drop into code when you need to, and is priced by workflow execution rather than per task. Self-hosting means you can run very high volume for the cost of a server.
Make (formerly Integromat) is a visual automation builder with a more powerful canvas than Zapier. You can build branching, looping, multi-step "scenarios" that handle real complexity. It is cloud-only and priced per operation, but you get far more per rupee than Zapier.
Zapier is the most popular, most beginner-friendly automation tool. You connect apps with simple trigger-and-action "Zaps". It has the largest integration library and the gentlest learning curve. It is cloud-only and priced per task.
The comparison that matters
Forget the integration-count race. Here is how they compare on the axes that actually decide an agency's bill and headaches.
The pattern: Zapier and Make are easier to start with but get expensive exactly where agencies live (high volume). n8n is harder to start with but the economics flip in your favour as you automate more.
When n8n wins (and the agency case)
n8n is the right call when you are automating a lot, when your workflows need real custom logic, or when per-task pricing has started to hurt. For an agency running automations across many clients, all three are usually true.
The clearest example is the cost angle. On a per-task tool, every step of every workflow for every client is metered. Multiply that across a dozen clients and a handful of multi-step workflows each, and the monthly bill climbs steadily as you grow. With self-hosted n8n, that same volume runs on a server you already pay a fixed amount for. Your cost per automated workflow goes down as you add more, which is the exact opposite of the per-task model. For a business whose margin depends on automating delivery, that difference compounds.
The trade-off is real: you own the hosting and the maintenance. Something breaks, it is on you to fix. That is why the honest recommendation is to start n8n on internal, low-risk workflows first, get comfortable, then expand.
When Make wins
Make is the better pick when you want serious visual power and branching logic but you do not want to run your own server. Its canvas handles complexity that would be painful in Zapier, and its pricing is far kinder than Zapier's for the same work. If you are a small agency that values a polished visual builder over raw cost optimisation, and self-hosting feels like a step too far, Make is a strong middle ground.
It still bills per operation and is still cloud-only, so at very high volume the same cost pressure that hits Zapier will eventually reach you, just later.
When Zapier wins
Zapier wins on exactly one thing: speed and ease of setup. If you need a simple, light automation running in ten minutes, and the volume is low enough that per-task pricing never becomes a problem, Zapier is the fastest path. It is also the easiest for a non-technical team member to maintain.
Where it stops making sense is high-volume agency delivery. The same per-task pricing that makes it painless at low volume makes it expensive at the volume an agency actually runs. Use it for light internal automations, not for your core delivery engine.
What I run, and why
For agency delivery work, I default to self-hosted n8n. The reason is purely economic: agencies automate a lot, and any tool that charges more the more you automate is working against your margin. n8n's execution-based, self-hostable model means heavy automation makes my cost per workflow cheaper, not more expensive.
I still reach for Zapier when a client needs a quick, light, one-off automation and setup speed matters more than long-term cost. The tool follows the job. But for the high-frequency, repeatable delivery work that the margin actually depends on, the economics make the choice for me.
Not sure which tool fits your agency?
Send me your delivery workflows and rough monthly volume. I'll tell you which tool actually makes sense for your scale, no pitch, just the honest comparison.
