n8n vs Make vs Custom Scripts: When to Use What for AI Workflow Automation
I've built automations with all three approaches. Here's when each one wins and when it doesn't.
The Quick Answer
- Make (Integromat) — Best for non-technical teams, simple integrations, < 10 steps
- n8n — Best for technical teams, complex logic, self-hosted, AI integrations
- Custom scripts — Best for unique requirements, high volume, full control
Make (Integromat)
Strengths
- Beautiful visual builder
- 1,500+ pre-built integrations
- Zero infrastructure to manage
- Non-engineers can maintain it
Weaknesses
- Gets expensive at scale ($9-29/mo for basic, $99+ for real usage)
- Complex branching logic is awkward
- AI/LLM integrations are limited
- Vendor lock-in
Best for
- Marketing automation (email sequences, social posting)
- CRM sync between tools
- Simple approval workflows
- Teams where a non-engineer needs to maintain it
n8n
Strengths
- Self-hosted = no per-execution costs
- First-class AI agent support
- JavaScript/Python code nodes for custom logic
- Community nodes for niche integrations
- Can run on a $5/mo VPS
Weaknesses
- Requires some technical skill
- UI is less polished than Make
- Self-hosting means you manage uptime
- Fewer native integrations than Make
Best for
- AI-powered workflows (Claude, GPT, embeddings)
- Data processing pipelines
- Workflows with complex branching
- Cost-sensitive teams processing high volume
- Developers who want control
Custom Scripts (Python/Node)
Strengths
- Total control over every aspect
- Best performance at scale
- No platform limitations
- Can do literally anything
Weaknesses
- Highest build cost
- Requires developer to maintain
- No visual monitoring dashboard (unless you build one)
- Harder to hand off to non-technical team members
Best for
- High-volume data processing (1M+ records)
- Unique integrations with no existing connectors
- Real-time event processing
- ML model inference in the pipeline
- When the automation IS the product
Decision Matrix
| Factor | Make | n8n | Custom |
|---|---|---|---|
| Setup time | 1 hour | 4 hours | 1-3 days |
| Monthly cost (small) | $29 | $0-5 | $5-20 |
| Monthly cost (large) | $299+ | $20 | $20-50 |
| AI integration | Basic | Great | Full control |
| Maintenance | Easy | Medium | Hard |
| Scalability | Limited | Good | Best |
| Learning curve | Low | Medium | High |
My Recommendation
Start with n8n for most automation projects. Here's why:
- Free to start — self-host on any cheap VPS
- AI-native — first-class Claude and GPT nodes
- Escape hatch — code nodes let you do anything Make can't
- Growing fast — the community is shipping new nodes weekly
Use Make when the person maintaining the automation is non-technical.
Use custom scripts when you need raw performance, unique integrations, or the automation is complex enough that a visual builder becomes a liability.
Real-World Example
A client needed: form submission → AI analysis → CRM entry → email notification → Slack alert
- Make: $49/mo, 2 hours to build, works but AI step is awkward
- n8n: $0/mo (self-hosted), 3 hours to build, AI step is clean
- Custom: $0/mo, 8 hours to build, overkill for this use case
We went with n8n. It's been running for 3 months with zero issues.
Not sure which approach fits your workflow? Get an async audit →