Make.com automation
Make.com expert for scenario builds, with an honest take on n8n vs Make
If your business already runs on Make (Integromat, if you have been around a while), I build and fix scenarios there. Moving a working setup to another platform just to suit my preference is not a good use of your money.
If you are still choosing a platform, I will give you a straight answer on n8n vs Make for your case. For most new custom builds I lean toward n8n, and the reasons are below.
Book a free 15-minute callWhen to hire a Make.com consultant
Make work I take on usually looks like one of these.
Your scenarios work but cost too much
Operations add up when a scenario polls too often or loops over data it does not need. I restructure scenarios to use fewer operations.
A scenario keeps failing
Incomplete executions pile up and nobody is alerted. I add error handlers and routes so failures get retried or reported.
You need something new on Make
Your team knows Make and wants to keep it. I build the new scenario there and document it so your team can maintain it.
What I build in Make
The same systems I build elsewhere, built the Make way.
Lead capture and routing
Form or webhook in, lead cleaned up, pushed to the CRM and routed to the right person with an alert.
Sync and back-office scenarios
Moving data between CRMs, sheets, invoicing and project tools on a schedule or on a trigger.
AI steps inside scenarios
Classifying, extracting or drafting with an AI module, with the rest of the scenario kept deterministic so the output holds up.
n8n vs Make: which one I would pick
Both are good tools. The difference that matters most to small businesses is how they bill and how far you can go with custom logic.
I pick Make when a team is already trained on it, the scenarios are simple and nobody wants to think about hosting. I pick n8n when the logic is branching and custom, when volume would make per-operation billing expensive, or when the data needs to stay on a server the client controls. If you are comparing Make with Zapier, the same reasoning applies: Make is usually the cheaper and more flexible of the two for multi-step work. Plans change often, so check each vendor's pricing page before deciding.
| Question | Make | n8n |
|---|---|---|
| How it bills | By operations (credits) each module uses | By workflow execution on n8n Cloud; self-hosted Community Edition has no execution fee |
| Hosting | Cloud only | n8n Cloud or self-hosted on your own server |
| Custom code | Limited; mostly built from modules | JavaScript and Python Code nodes in the workflow |
| Learning curve | Friendlier visual builder for non-developers | Steeper, but more control once complex |
| Best fit | Simple to mid-size scenarios, teams already on Make | Custom logic, high volume, data that must stay in-house |
How a project runs
Same four steps for every build. You talk to me the whole way through, not an account manager.
01
A 15-minute call
You tell me where the hours and the leads are leaking. I ask enough questions to know what to build first.
02
A proposal with the build already started
A diagram of the scenario and a working build of the core path, in Make or n8n depending on what we agreed fits.
03
One price, anchored to ROI
A fixed price per project, set against what the system makes or saves you. No hourly billing, no retainer you did not ask for.
04
Build, test, hand over
I build it, test it against your real data and hand it over with documentation and a recorded walkthrough.
Related automations
Recorded runs of systems I've built, each one clickable step by step.
Questions about Make.com
Other things I build
Not sure if Make or n8n fits your build?
Book a free 15-minute call. Walk me through what you want automated and I'll tell you which tool I'd use and why.
Book a free automation audit