Make.com → n8n: The Process
A structured 4-phase migration — no forced cutover, no downtime, no lost scenarios.
Why Teams Move from Make to n8n
Make.com is a well-designed platform. Teams that migrate usually have a specific trigger — and it's almost never that Make is bad. It's that their needs have outgrown what Make can offer efficiently. The most common reasons: operation costs (Make charges per operation; high-frequency scenarios multiply fast), data residency (Make is cloud-only; self-hosted n8n solves this structurally), code control (n8n's Code node runs full JavaScript with npm access; Make's code module is limited by comparison), and AI workflow depth (n8n's native LangChain and Claude nodes are significantly more capable).
Make Scenarios vs n8n Workflows: What Changes
Make uses a module chain model — each module processes data and passes it to the next. n8n uses a node-graph model — nodes connect in any direction, with merge, branch, loop, and sub-workflow patterns that don't have direct Make equivalents. The practical implication: a Make scenario with 10 modules might become a single n8n workflow with 8 nodes and better error handling — or 2 smaller workflows where the logic is cleaner. My approach: understand what each scenario achieves, then build the n8n architecture that does it well.
The Cost Calculation
Make's Core plan: $9/month for 10,000 operations. Growth: $16/month. Teams: from $29/month. Operations fill up quickly with active stacks. n8n self-hosted: $12–24/month for a DigitalOcean Droplet or AWS instance. Unlimited operations. The break-even is typically 30,000–60,000 monthly operations — after which self-hosted is cheaper every month, indefinitely.
A typical Make-to-n8n migration takes 2–5 weeks depending on scenario count and complexity. You get a configured self-hosted n8n instance, every scenario rebuilt and validated, clear documentation for each workflow, and a 30-day post-cutover support period. Make stays active until n8n is fully validated — no forced cutover.
Make.com Migration Done Right
Make scenarios redesigned for n8n's architecture — not just rebuilt, but improved in reliability and maintainability.
What's Your Make Bill
Buying You Every Month?
Tell me your scenario count and monthly operation volume. I'll scope the migration effort and show you the break-even timeline — no commitment required.
Make.com to n8n Migration: A Complete Guide to Moving Your Automation Stack
Migrating from Make.com to n8n is a fundamentally different challenge than migrating from Zapier. Zapier automations are mostly linear — trigger, action, done. Make scenarios use routers, aggregators, iterators, and complex data mappings that reflect genuine business logic. The migration requires understanding that logic first, then building the n8n equivalent from intention rather than from Make's visual structure. Done this way, the result is a cleaner, more maintainable automation stack. Done by copying module structure into n8n without thinking, the result is workflows that work but miss n8n's real capabilities.
Why Teams Migrate from Make to n8n: The Real Drivers
Make.com's per-operation pricing model is the most common migration trigger. Make counts every module execution in a scenario as an operation. A scenario with 12 modules processing 500 bundles per run consumes 6,000 operations in a single execution. Teams running multiple active scenarios with frequent schedules accumulate monthly operations quickly — and operation tier upgrades are the only path to more capacity.
n8n self-hosted has no operation limit. You pay for the server — $12–24/month — and run unlimited workflow executions. The break-even relative to Make's Growth or Teams plans typically arrives at 50,000–80,000 monthly operations. Beyond pricing, data residency requirements, AI workflow capabilities, and code extensibility come up consistently in migration conversations.
- Make Core: $9/mo, 10,000 ops — fills up fast with complex scenarios
- Make Growth: $16/mo, 10,000 ops — for teams needing advanced features
- n8n self-hosted: $12–24/mo server, unlimited operations
How Make Scenarios Map to n8n Workflows
Most Make patterns have direct n8n equivalents: Modules → Nodes; Routers → IF/Switch nodes; Filters → IF nodes; Schedulers → Cron triggers; Webhooks → Webhook trigger nodes; Aggregators → Merge nodes and data aggregation expressions; Iterators → n8n's native array handling (every node automatically processes each item in an array); HTTP module → HTTP Request node.
The patterns requiring careful redesign: complex aggregator logic that accumulates data across many bundles, Make Data Stores (n8n stores data in PostgreSQL, Redis, or an external key-value service), and scenarios that rely on Make-specific module features without obvious n8n analogues (rare, but worth auditing upfront). The opportunity during migration: Make scenarios built incrementally over time often have redundancy and inefficiency that a clean n8n rebuild eliminates.
The Parallel Testing Phase: Why It's Non-Negotiable
Every professional Make-to-n8n migration runs both platforms simultaneously before cutting over. The parallel test period: n8n workflows are connected to the same data sources as corresponding Make scenarios. Both platforms receive the same triggers and process the same data. Outputs are compared — any discrepancy logged, investigated, and fixed before the validation window counts as clean. The standard validation period is two weeks for most workflows; four weeks for business-critical ones. Make stays fully active and subscribed throughout. Full service and what's included: n8n consulting services or send a message with your scenario count and current Make plan.