Migrate from Make.com to n8n

Why teams leave Make.com (cost, limits, complexity, reliability)

Most teams don’t leave Make because they dislike it. They leave because they’ve outgrown it.

Cost behaviour as workflows and data volumes grow

Make’s pricing is tied to operations – every module execution in a scenario consumes credits. As you add more branches, transforms and API calls, the operation count climbs quickly. Make+2relay.app+2

That’s fine for a small estate. It gets harder to justify when:

• Scenarios are running continuously on production data
  
  
  

• You have multi-branch flows with lots of intermediate modules
  
  
  

• A few core scenarios account for most of your automation bill
  
  
  

Forecasting and controlling costs becomes non-trivial, especially if nobody “owns” scenario design standards.

Complexity of managing large scenario libraries

Make is excellent for building individual flows. Managing dozens or hundreds of scenarios over time is a different challenge:

• Overlapping logic spread across multiple scenarios
  
  
  

• Minimal reuse of common patterns
  
  
  

• Harder to see what’s critical vs experimental
  
  
  

• Dependency chains that live in someone’s head, not in docs Hackceleration+1
  
  
  

As scenarios accumulate, so does risk. A small change in one flow can have unexpected effects elsewhere.

Vendor lock-in and limited control over infra/data

Make is a hosted platform. You don’t control:

• Where the underlying infrastructure runs
  
  
  

• How data is stored internally
  
  
  

• How long logs are retained
  
  
  

• When breaking changes to connectors are rolled out Make+1
  
  
  

For teams with stricter security or data residency requirements, or those integrating sensitive internal systems, this is increasingly uncomfortable.

Reliability, debugging, and observability for complex flows

Make has a capable execution inspector, but at higher complexity you start to feel its limits:

• Debugging multi-branch scenarios with lots of modules is slow
  
  
  

• Long-running flows can be harder to reason about
  
  
  

• Alerting and monitoring are not on par with typical engineering observability stacks Hackceleration+1
  
  
  

When workflows are “nice to have”, this is acceptable. When they’re part of how revenue is generated or customers are served, it becomes a risk surface.

These are the main drivers we see when serious teams decide it’s time to migrate Make to n8n.

Benefits of n8n for larger or more complex workflows

n8n is closer to automation infrastructure than a simple SaaS tool. That’s why our n8n consultants recommend it once automation becomes business-critical. GitHub+2n8n+2

Cost model at scale

With n8n, especially in self-hosted setups:

• There is no per-operation billing in the community edition
  
  
  

• You pay for infrastructure (servers/containers) and, if applicable, commercial licensing
  
  
  

• You can run many workflows and executions within the same environment
  
  
  

This makes costs more predictable for high-volume automation than credit-based models. n8n+2n8n+2

There are still real costs in running and maintaining the platform, but they behave more like other engineering infrastructure than a “metered SaaS” bill.

Control and ownership

Self-hosted n8n gives you:

• Full control over where workflows run (cloud, on-prem, VPC)
  
  
  

• Ability to keep data inside your infrastructure and region
  
  
  

• Direct access to logs and runtime behaviour
  
  
  

• Freedom to integrate internal services that will never appear as public connectors n8n+2GitHub+2
  
  
  

For organisations with compliance obligations or internal data platforms, this level of control is often non-negotiable.

More expressive workflow logic and extensibility

Make is very flexible, but n8n pushes further towards “visual programming”:

• Rich branching and looping
  
  
  

• Direct JSON manipulation and expressions
  
  
  

• Ability to mix low-code nodes with custom JavaScript where needed n8n+2helloroketto.com+2
  
  
  

If your team includes engineers or technically comfortable ops, this combination of visual design and code is powerful. It lets our n8n developers encode nuanced business rules without fighting the tool.

Automation as part of the engineering / ops stack

Because n8n is source-available and self-hostable, you can:

• Version-control workflow definitions
  
  
  

• Integrate with CI/CD pipelines
  
  
  

• Align monitoring and alerting with the rest of your stack GitHub+1
  
  
  

In other words, automation stops being “that thing in a separate SaaS” and becomes part of your operational infrastructure.

Our migration process (audit → map → build → test → monitor)

A Make.com to n8n migration doesn’t have to be disruptive. The risk mostly comes from rushing or treating it as a 1:1 copy exercise.

As an n8n automation agency, we use a structured process:

Audit – inventory of Make scenarios and their business owners

We start by making the invisible visible:

• Export a list of all active and scheduled scenarios
  
  
  

• Group them by business process (e.g. lead routing, billing notifications, reporting)
  
  
  

• Identify:
  
  
  

  • Critical flows (customer impact, revenue, risk)
    
    
    

  • High-volume / high-cost flows
    
    
    

  • Redundant or obsolete scenarios
    
    
    

We also capture owners – who understands why each scenario exists and what “good” looks like.

Map – design n8n equivalents, consolidate and improve

Next, we map scenarios to n8n designs:

• Identify equivalent triggers and integrations in n8n
  
  
  

• Decide where to merge overlapping scenarios into shared workflows
  
  
  

• Add explicit error handling, logging and idempotency where Make flows relied on defaults
  
  
  

• Introduce a standard structure for naming, folders and documentation
  
  
  

At this stage, our workflow automation experts are deliberately improving design, not just copying it.

Build – clean, reliable, well-documented n8n workflows

We then build the workflows in n8n:

• Use clear node structures and naming conventions
  
  
  

• Extract reusable parts into sub-workflows
  
  
  

• Implement safeguards (validation, retries, dead-letter handling where appropriate)
  
  
  

• Document assumptions, inputs, outputs and dependencies
  
  
  

The goal is a system that can be safely maintained by your team or ours.

Test – parallel runs and real data

Before switching anything off in Make:

• Run key workflows in parallel where possible (Make and n8n side by side)
  
  
  

• Feed n8n with live or realistic test payloads
  
  
  

• Compare outputs into downstream systems (CRM, billing, warehouse, etc.)
  
  
  

• Simulate failure modes (API errors, rate limits, malformed data)
  
  
  

Only when we’re confident behaviour matches (or improves on) the original do we cut over.

Monitor – logging, alerting, and ongoing iteration

After cutover, we treat workflows like production systems:

• Set up logging and metrics for n8n executions
  
  
  

• Configure alerts for failure rates and latency thresholds
  
  
  

• Review early incidents and refine error handling
  
  
  

This is where most DIY migrations fall down. Our n8n experts design monitoring in from the start.

What’s required before migrating

You don’t need everything perfect to start, but a few inputs make migration smoother:

• Overview of your Make.com estate
  
  
  

  • List of active scenarios
    
    
    

  • Rough notes on what they do and which teams they serve
    
    
    

• Clarity on critical flows
  
  
  

  • Which scenarios are revenue-critical or customer-facing
    
    
    

  • Any SLAs attached to them
    
    
    

• Decision (or preference) on hosting
  
  
  

  • Self-hosted n8n vs managed cloud n8n+2n8n+2
    
    
    

• Access to systems and people
  
  
  

  • API keys / service accounts for your tools
    
    
    

  • Someone who understands the business rules behind key automations
    
    
    

If any of this is missing, we can include a short discovery phase to gather it.

Common pitfalls (and how we prevent them)

We see the same patterns whenever teams try to migrate Make.com to n8n on their own.

1. “Lift and shift” 1:1 without redesign

Problem: copying each scenario directly into n8n recreates existing complexity and technical debt. You end up with the same mess on a different platform.

How we prevent it: our n8n consultants group and redesign flows, consolidating where it makes sense and introducing standards for structure, naming and reuse.

2. Big-bang migration

Problem: moving everything at once means if something breaks, you’re debugging many workflows simultaneously, often under time pressure.

How we prevent it: we phase migrations:

1. Low-risk, low-complexity flows
   
   
   

2. High-value but well-understood flows
   
   
   

3. Edge cases and rarely used scenarios
   
   
   

Each phase has its own test and cutover plan.

3. Underestimating auth, permissions and rate limits

Problem: flows that worked in Make fail in n8n because credentials, scopes or rate limits weren’t properly accounted for.

How we prevent it:

• Use dedicated service accounts where possible
  
  
  

• Align scopes and permissions with least-privilege principles
  
  
  

• Model rate limits in workflow design (backoff, queuing, batching)
  
  
  

4. No monitoring after cutover

Problem: without proper logs and alerts, failures go unnoticed until users complain.

How we prevent it:

• Bake logging and error outputs into the n8n design
  
  
  

• Surface key metrics in dashboards your team already uses
  
  
  

• Set up alerts for critical workflows from day one
  
  
  

5. Ignoring internal change management

Problem: teams discover new tooling and behaviour changes after the fact, leading to confusion and rollback pressure.

How we prevent it:

• Involve owners of key processes early
  
  
  

• Share migration plans and timelines
  
  
  

• Provide lightweight training so internal teams understand how to work with n8n
  
  
  

Short case example (migration result)

A simplified but representative example.

Client: B2B SaaS company with ~60 employees
Before:

• ~40 Make.com scenarios supporting:
  
  
  

  • Lead routing and enrichment
    
    
    

  • Customer onboarding emails
    
    
    

  • Billing and dunning notifications
    
    
    

  • Internal Slack alerts
    
    
    

• Make usage steadily increasing; operations occasionally spiking
  
  
  

• No clear owner for scenarios; a few “Make power users” held the knowledge
  
  
  

After n8n migration:

• Consolidated into ~18 n8n workflows and sub-workflows
  
  
  

• Deployed n8n into the client’s existing cloud environment
  
  
  

• Introduced standard logging, error alerts and simple dashboards
  
  
  

Results (first 3 months):

• More predictable costs (automation spend aligned to infra budgets, not credit spikes) relay.app+2Latenode+2
  
  
  

• Fewer silent failures thanks to monitoring and alerting
  
  
  

• Clear mapping of workflows to business processes and owners
  
  
  

• Internal ops team able to request and understand new automations without learning Make’s UI
  
  
  

The specific numbers will vary by organisation, but this pattern – more control, clearer costs, better reliability – is typical.

Why use an n8n agency for Make.com migrations

On paper, your team could do this alone. In practice, migration often stalls behind other priorities, or ends up as a partial, fragile port.

Working with a specialist n8n agency gives you:

Experience with both Make and n8n

We’ve seen how real-world scenarios behave on Make, and how they should be modelled on n8n. That means faster mapping, better design choices, and fewer unpleasant surprises. goodspeed.studio+1

A proven migration process

The audit → map → build → test → monitor pipeline exists to:

• Reduce downtime risk
  
  
  

• Deliver value early (by targeting costly or fragile flows first)
  
  
  

• Keep stakeholders aligned as behaviour changes
  
  
  

Production-grade automation systems

Our workflow automation experts treat automations as part of your core stack, not side projects:

• Explicit error handling
  
  
  

• Observability
  
  
  

• Documentation and reusability
  
  
  

That’s hard to get from ad hoc migrations.

An ongoing partner after migration

Once Make.com is out of the way, you’ll typically want to:

• Add new workflows
  
  
  

• Integrate more tools
  
  
  

• Optimise what you already have
  
  
  

Having dedicated n8n experts on call – whether on a light retainer or project basis – keeps momentum going.

Request a migration review

If your Make scenarios are starting to feel like a fragile dependency, or your operations bill is creeping up, it’s a good time to explore n8n.

We offer a focused Make.com → n8n migration review where we:

• Audit your current Make setup
  
  
  

• Identify high-value, high-risk candidates for migration
  
  
  

• Recommend hosting options for n8n
  
  
  

• Propose a phased, low-risk migration plan