<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Make-Com on René Zander | AI Automation Consultant</title><link>https://renezander.com/tags/make-com/</link><description>Recent content in Make-Com on René Zander | AI Automation Consultant</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://renezander.com/tags/make-com/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Make.com vs n8n Comparison 2026: Cost, Reliability, AI Agents</title><link>https://renezander.com/guides/makecom-vs-n8n-production-workloads/</link><pubDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://renezander.com/guides/makecom-vs-n8n-production-workloads/</guid><description>&lt;p>Most comparison articles list features side by side and call it a day. This is not that article.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>I run both Make.com and n8n in production for clients. Content pipelines, data enrichment flows, CRM sync jobs, AI agent orchestration. Some of these run thousands of executions per week. Here is what actually matters when you move past the tutorial phase.&lt;/p>
&lt;h2 id="makecom-vs-n8n-in-2026-which-one-wins">Make.com vs n8n in 2026: which one wins?&lt;/h2>
&lt;p>n8n wins for production at scale. Make.com wins for first-week learnability. The split: n8n is cheaper past 50k operations/month, runs in your VPC, and orchestrates AI agents natively. Make.com is faster to learn for non-developers and ships node-level error handlers as a first-class feature.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>