If you are evaluating automation tools for your B2B business, you have almost certainly come across n8n, Make, and Zapier. They all promise to connect your tools, eliminate manual work, and save your team hours every week. The question is which one is actually right for your situation.
The honest answer is that the choice matters less than most people think — and more than most people account for. Let me explain both of those things.
Why the tool you choose matters less than you think
Every automation platform in this comparison can handle the most common B2B use cases: connecting your CRM to your email platform, routing form submissions to Slack, syncing data between tools, sending follow-up sequences. For straightforward tasks, the differences between them are largely cosmetic.
Where businesses go wrong is assuming that choosing the right tool will solve their automation problems. It will not. The tool is roughly 20% of the result. The other 80% is the quality of the logic you build, whether the underlying data is clean enough to automate reliably, how well the workflows are maintained as tools and processes change, and whether the person building them understands the business process deeply enough to automate it well.
A mediocre workflow in n8n is still mediocre. An elegant, well-maintained workflow in Zapier will outperform a badly designed n8n setup every time. The tool does not do the thinking.
What these three tools actually are
Zapier is the oldest of the three and the one most people encounter first. It is designed to be accessible to non-technical users: the interface is simple, the app library is the largest in the industry (6,000+ integrations), and you can have a basic automation running in under ten minutes. The trade-off is that it is the most expensive at scale and the least flexible when you need custom logic, complex branching, or transformations that go beyond what its built-in filters and formatters support. Zapier charges per task (each step in a workflow counts), which means costs escalate quickly as your automation volume grows.
Make (formerly Integromat) sits in the middle. It has a visual, canvas-based interface that is more complex than Zapier but significantly more powerful. Multi-step workflows with conditional logic, data transformations, loops, and error handling are all straightforward in Make. Pricing is based on operations per month rather than tasks, which typically makes it considerably more affordable than Zapier for comparable workflows. Make strikes a good balance for most SMB B2B use cases — enough power to handle real complexity, without requiring deep technical knowledge to build and maintain workflows.
n8n is open-source and can be self-hosted, which fundamentally changes the cost and control model. There is a cloud version, but the self-hosted option means you can run it on your own infrastructure with no per-task fees whatsoever. It is the most technically demanding of the three — the interface is powerful but not as polished, and you will want someone with technical capability to build and maintain it. In return, you get custom code nodes (JavaScript or Python) that can handle any logic the no-code builders cannot, full access to your data, and complete control over your infrastructure.
| Tool | Ease of use | Flexibility | Cost at scale | Self-hosting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier | Easiest | Limited | Expensive | No |
| Make | Moderate | Good | Affordable | No |
| n8n | Technical | Maximum | Low / fixed | Yes |
Where Zapier wins
Zapier is the right choice in specific circumstances, and it is genuinely excellent within those boundaries.
If you have a non-technical team that needs to build and maintain simple automations without ongoing support, Zapier is the right answer. The interface requires no training, the error messages are clear, and the built-in templates get you to something working in minutes. For a small team running five to ten straightforward point-to-point automations — new form submission creates a CRM contact, new CRM deal sends a Slack message — Zapier is fast to deploy and easy to maintain.
Its app library is also genuinely unmatched. If you are working with a niche or newer SaaS tool that Make or n8n does not yet have a native integration for, Zapier is more likely to have it. For many B2B businesses, this is the deciding factor: your specific stack determines your platform.
The problem is that Zapier's strengths scale down, not up. As your automation requirements grow in volume or complexity, you will either hit its flexibility limits or its pricing will become a significant line item. When you find yourself needing logic that Zapier's built-in tools cannot handle, the answer is typically to move to Make or n8n rather than try to engineer workarounds.
Where Make wins
Make is where most growing B2B businesses land, and for good reason. Once you are comfortable with the canvas interface — which takes a few hours, not weeks — the range of things you can do becomes quite significant.
Multi-step workflows with proper conditional logic are Make's natural habitat. If your automation needs to check a field value, take one of three different paths depending on the result, transform data mid-workflow, and then write to two different destinations, Make handles this cleanly. Zapier can approximate this but tends to produce unwieldy, hard-to-read chains of steps. n8n handles it equally well but requires more technical setup.
Make's pricing model also makes it significantly more cost-effective than Zapier for anything beyond basic use. You pay per operation rather than per task, and the operation limits on paid plans are generous. For a business running 20–30 workflows of moderate complexity, Make typically costs a fraction of what an equivalent Zapier setup would.
For most SMB B2B businesses — a growth-stage SaaS, a professional services firm, a mid-sized agency — Make is the sensible default. It covers most of what you need, at a price that makes sense, without requiring a technical hire to maintain it.
Where n8n wins
n8n becomes the right choice when one or more of the following conditions apply: you have high automation volume that makes per-task or per-operation pricing uneconomical; you need custom code logic that no-code tools cannot express; or data sovereignty and infrastructure control are requirements rather than preferences.
The data sovereignty point is increasingly important for UK and EU businesses operating under GDPR. When your workflows handle sensitive customer data — personal information, financial data, health records — running your automation on your own infrastructure means you control exactly where that data lives, who can access it, and how long it is retained. A self-hosted n8n instance on your own servers or a dedicated cloud environment gives you that control. Zapier and Make are cloud-only, which means your workflow data passes through their infrastructure.
The custom code nodes are the other major differentiator. Any logic that a no-code builder cannot express — complex string manipulation, custom API authentication schemes, proprietary calculation logic, interactions with internal systems — can be handled in n8n with a JavaScript or Python node. This matters most for technical teams building sophisticated bespoke automation workflows that go beyond standard integrations.
At scale, n8n's economics are also compelling. A self-hosted instance on a small cloud server can run thousands of workflow executions per day at essentially zero marginal cost. For agencies and technical teams running automation infrastructure for multiple clients or high-volume internal processes, n8n's pricing model makes it the obvious choice.
What we use at Ionis AI and why
We use both n8n and Make, depending on what a client needs. We do not use Zapier for client work.
For complex, data-sensitive, or high-volume workflows — particularly for clients who need GDPR-compliant infrastructure or who have technical requirements that go beyond what standard integrations can handle — we build in n8n. The flexibility is worth the additional setup time, and for clients running significant automation volume, the economics are straightforwardly better.
For mid-complexity workflows where speed of deployment matters and technical requirements are within Make's capabilities, we build in Make. It is faster to iterate on, easier for clients to understand when we hand over documentation, and covers the vast majority of business process automation use cases without needing custom code.
We stopped using Zapier for client work because at the volume and complexity our clients typically need, it is both more expensive and less capable. For clients with very simple, stable automation needs, we might still recommend it as a self-serve option — but when someone is paying for a professional build, Zapier's limitations tend to create problems down the line.
How to choose
If you are trying to decide which tool to adopt, the following framework will get you to the right answer for most situations.
Non-technical team, simple and stable needs (under 10 automations, no complex logic): Zapier. The ease of use and large app library outweigh the cost and flexibility limitations at this scale.
Growth-stage business, moderate complexity, team without deep technical resource: Make. It will handle the breadth of your automation needs at a sensible price, and it is maintainable without a developer.
High volume, data-sensitive workflows, need for custom logic, or technical team in-house: n8n. The self-hosting option, custom code nodes, and cost model make it the right foundation for serious automation infrastructure.
Not sure: Talk to someone who has built on all three platforms and can assess your specific stack and requirements. The wrong choice at the start of a build is expensive to undo — it is worth getting an honest second opinion before committing. You can see how we work and what we charge, or book a call directly below.
We build automation workflows on n8n and Make for B2B businesses across the UK, Europe, and beyond. If you are not sure which platform is right for your situation, we will give you a straight answer — no sales pitch.