Overview
This video reviews and compares the new AI agent system in make.com (beta) against N8N's AI agents, evaluating both platforms across essential categories for building AI automations. The analysis covers user experience, available features, tool integration, memory, knowledge management, pricing, and more, culminating in a clear recommendation for users.
User Experience & Ease of Setup
- N8N offers straightforward, intuitive agent setup with direct access to prompts, models, memory, and tools from one interface.
- Make.com requires defining agents separately from workflows, complicating integration and initial setup.
- Triggering and testing agents is much easier in N8N due to a built-in chat interface, compared to make.com's lack of a native chat feature.
Interfaces & Triggers
- N8N supports multiple triggers for agents, including webhooks, forms, schedules, and integrations like Telegram, WhatsApp, and Slack.
- Agents in N8N can be embedded as public chatbots for web or internal tools.
- Make.com requires workarounds for chat interfaces and only supports a single trigger per scenario, making conversational use cases harder to implement.
LLMs & Reasoning Capabilities
- Make.com offers multiple LLM options but restricts changing model providers after agent creation, reducing flexibility.
- N8N provides more enterprise model options, local hosting, and dynamic switching.
- Reasoning agents perform better on N8N, allowing for advanced configurations like thinking budgets and iteration limits.
Prompt Engineering & Dynamic Variables
- N8N allows dynamic variables and code expressions directly in system prompts for agents.
- Make.com supports some dynamic instructions only at the scenario level, not in the core agent prompt.
- Both platforms support logic and expressions but N8N is more flexible for complex or dynamic requirements.
Tools & Integration
- Make.com boasts a wider range of native modules but requires tools to be wrapped as scenarios.
- N8N provides direct access to many tools and supports HTTP requests without wrapping, but offers fewer native integrations.
- When the number of out-of-the-box integrations matters, make.com is superior.
Memory & Session Management
- N8N offers granular control over memory persistence, session keys, and context window lengths.
- Make.com abstracts memory management, offering simplicity at the expense of flexibility.
- Both are adequate, but N8N is better for advanced use cases.
Knowledge & Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)
- N8N has comprehensive built-in RAG support, vector store management, and advanced chunking options for document ingestion.
- Make.com lacks native chunking and relies on third-party services for advanced knowledge tasks.
- N8N is favored for use cases requiring knowledge retrieval and context enrichment.
Output Formatting, Debugging, and Error Handling
- N8N enables strict output type enforcement and has superior debugging tools, including "retry with same data" for previous runs.
- Make.com lacks forced output formatting and has limited debugging options.
- Error handling and node-level retries are more robust in N8N.
Deployment, Privacy, and Pricing
- N8N can be self-hosted, run locally, or deployed in private clouds, providing high data privacy and flexible costs.
- Make.com is cloud-only and offers privacy controls primarily for enterprise plans.
- N8N is more cost-effective and scalable due to open-source hosting options.
Cutting Edge Features (MCP Support)
- N8N supports Modular Component Protocol (MCP), ensuring broader agent and tool interoperability.
- Make.com currently lacks MCP support and risks falling behind industry standards.
Pricing Comparison
- N8N's open-source self-hosted version is free (excluding server costs), making it highly economical at scale.
- Make.com charges per operation, potentially inflating costs for heavy workflows.
Overall Recommendation
- N8N clearly leads in agent maturity, flexibility, user experience, deployment options, and advanced features.
- Make.com’s advantage lies in its broader native integrations, but its agent system is less user-friendly and currently less functional.
- N8N is recommended for most users, especially for advanced or scalable agent setups.
Decisions
- N8N chosen as overall preferred platform for AI agents.
- Make.com wins only in native tool integration count.
Recommendations / Advice
- Choose N8N if you need advanced agent features, privacy, and cost savings.
- Consider make.com if your use case relies on specific out-of-the-box integrations unavailable in N8N.