Short answer: Zapier is the easiest to start with and the most expensive at volume. Make.com offers far more control over data handling and branching at a lower cost per operation, with a steeper learning curve. n8n is self-hostable and cheapest at scale, but needs technical ownership. For most UK SMEs running multi-step operational workflows, Make.com is the best balance.
This is the difference that surprises people most. Zapier charges per task, where a task is roughly one action. Make.com charges per operation, but a single scenario can process many records within one run, and its handling of arrays means a well-built scenario consumes far fewer operations than the equivalent Zap. n8n, self-hosted, charges nothing per execution — you pay for the server and your time maintaining it.
For a low-volume business, the difference is trivial. At a few thousand runs a month, it becomes the dominant cost line, and the ranking is usually n8n, then Make, then Zapier — sometimes by a factor of several.
Zapier has the largest connector library by a wide margin, which matters if you use niche software. Make covers the major business tools thoroughly and its HTTP module handles anything with an API. n8n is similar. In practice the connector-count comparison is less decisive than it looks: most SME stacks are built from the same twenty or so tools, and all three cover those.
Relevant for UK and EU businesses handling personal data. Zapier and Make are US-headquartered with EU data centre options on higher tiers; you'll need to check your plan and complete the relevant transfer documentation. n8n self-hosted keeps everything on infrastructure you control, which is the cleanest position if you're processing sensitive data and want to avoid international transfer questions entirely.
Whichever you choose, the platform is a processor and belongs in your record of processing activities with a data processing agreement in place.
Yes, but it's a rebuild rather than a migration — there's no meaningful export path between platforms. The way to protect yourself is to document your workflows independently of the tool. If the process architecture exists as a document, rebuilding on a different platform is a few days' work rather than a rediscovery exercise.
Harder than Zapier, easier than code. Expect a week to become competent with the core modules, longer for reliable error handling. The concepts — routers, iterators, aggregators — transfer to any platform.
No. Running two platforms doubles the maintenance surface for no benefit. Pick one and consolidate.
Use them where they genuinely cover the need — they're usually more reliable and free. Integration platforms earn their place when a workflow spans three or more systems or needs conditional logic.
We're stack-agnostic — we build on what fits your operation, not what we prefer selling. See our approach.