n8n vs. Make vs. Zapier: which should a small firm use?

The three platforms in one paragraph each

Zapier is the most established automation platform and the easiest to learn. Its app catalog is the largest in the category, covering thousands of applications, so almost anything you use has a pre-built connector. The tradeoff is pricing: Zapier bills per task, and costs climb quickly once workflows run at real volume. It fits teams that want simple automations working today without technical help.

Make (formerly Integromat) sits in the middle. Its visual, drag-and-drop scenario builder makes multi-step logic easier to see and reason about than Zapier's linear editor, and its per-operation pricing is generally cheaper at comparable volume. The app catalog is smaller than Zapier's but covers most mainstream business tools. It fits teams that need branching, routers, and moderate complexity at a reasonable monthly cost.

n8n is the most flexible of the three. It is source-available and can be self-hosted, meaning the software and the data flowing through it can run on infrastructure you control. It supports custom code, complex branching, and direct API calls to services without pre-built connectors. The learning curve is the steepest, and self-hosting means someone has to maintain the instance. It fits complex workflows, high volumes where per-task pricing would hurt, and data-sensitive environments.

Compare by use case, not by winner

There is no best platform, only a best fit for a given job.

"We need a form to create a CRM contact and send a notification." Any of the three handles this. Zapier gets it running fastest.

"We need intake routing with different paths by practice area, plus follow-up sequences." Make or n8n. Branching logic is where Zapier's simplicity starts costing money and clarity.

"Our workflows will process thousands of tasks a month." Make or self-hosted n8n. Per-task pricing at that volume favors platforms where cost flattens.

"Client data cannot leave infrastructure we control." Self-hosted n8n is the only one of the three that fully satisfies this. For law firms with strict confidentiality requirements, this is often the deciding factor.

"We want to call GPT or Claude inside a workflow with custom prompts and post-processing." All three can call AI APIs, but n8n gives the most control over prompt construction, response handling, and error paths.

Cost behavior as you grow

The pricing structures diverge as volume rises. Zapier's task-based tiers mean a busy firm can see its bill grow several-fold in a year of expansion. Make's operation-based pricing grows more slowly. Self-hosted n8n decouples cost from volume almost entirely; you pay for hosting, which changes little whether workflows run a hundred times or a hundred thousand.

For a firm just starting, this rarely matters. For a firm planning to automate intake, documents, scheduling, and billing over two years, it matters a great deal, and it is worth choosing with the end state in mind.

What Endeavors AI uses and why

Endeavors AI builds primarily with n8n and Make, integrated with GPT and Claude where workflows need language handling. n8n is the default for complex or data-sensitive builds, particularly for law firms, because self-hosting keeps client data under the firm's control and costs stay flat at volume. Make is the choice when a client's team will maintain workflows themselves and wants a gentler interface.

The recommendation always follows the client's existing stack. If a firm already runs Zapier and its workflows are simple, ripping it out to satisfy a preference would be wasted money. Platform choice is an engineering decision, not a loyalty program. Clients own everything delivered, including the workflows and the accounts they run in, so nothing locks a firm to the builder's choice.