Zapier alternatives
Sorted by the reason you are leaving. Billing, private data and branching each point somewhere different.
The verdict
For teams outgrowing Zapier, n8n is the closest replacement and can be self-hosted, Make suits non-technical operators who will stay hosted, and Temporal is right only when a half-finished run is a real incident.
Billing is the usual trigger. Zapier charges per task, and defines a task as "any successful action that runs in Zapier". Triggers, filters and paths do not count. That model suits a handful of low-volume connections and gets expensive as volume climbs.
The other common reason to leave is reach. Zapier connects hosted services to each other. Once a workflow has to touch a database you would not expose to the internet, the conversation changes from features to hosting.
- The billSelf-host n8n and stop paying per action
- Private datan8n, or your own cloud
- Non-technical ownerMake, and stay hosted
- Partial runs matterTemporal, and accept the code
- None of theseStay on Zapier
Most teams looking to leave land on the last row once the bill is explained.
How we judged these
Verified
We run n8n in production for Little Tree Confections, where it turns meeting transcripts into department-routed tasks. That judgement is experience. Zapier, Make, Temporal and the cloud schedulers are evaluation, and this page marks the difference rather than blurring it.
Vendor behaviour here was read from each vendor's own documentation on 12 August 2026, not from memory. Pricing models on this page change often, so check the date before relying on it.
- Billing unit
- What you are charged for, and whether that grows with volume or with complexity.
- Where it can run
- Whether the tool can sit inside your own infrastructure, next to private data.
- Who maintains it
- Whether a non-engineer can open the workflow and understand what it does.
- Failure behaviour
- What happens to a run that dies halfway, and whether recovery is provable.
The field
| Tool | Best for | Self-host | Billing unit | Durable runs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zapier (incumbent) | Connecting hosted apps to each other | No | Per successful action | No |
| n8n | Mixed teams that can run their own infrastructure | Yes | Per execution, or your own server | No |
| Make | Non-technical operators, hosted only | No | Per operation | No |
| Temporal | Work that must not lose state halfway | Yes | Self-hosted, or per action on Cloud | Yes |
| Cloud schedulers | Teams already living in one cloud | Managed only | Per step or invocation | Partial |
Ranked, by why you are leaving
- 01
n8n ↗
The closest replacement, self-hostable
Pick this if the bill is the problem or the data cannot leave your network. n8n keeps the visual canvas Zapier users expect and adds a code node for the parts a canvas handles badly.
Self-hosting removes per-task billing entirely and costs you a container instead. We run it this way for Little Tree, where it reads meeting transcripts and creates department-specific tasks with no manual handoff. Budget for Postgres rather than the default SQLite.
Best for
- Task billing has become the largest line in the tool budget
- A workflow needs to reach a private database
- Somebody on the team can own patching and backups
Not for
- Teams with nobody to run infrastructure and no wish to learn
- Anyone who needs a guaranteed replay of a half-finished run
- Licence
- Sustainable Use License (fair-code, not OSI)
- Self-host
- Yes, documented
- 02
Make ↗
Hosted canvas, easier for non-engineers
Choose Make when the person maintaining the automation is not technical and never will be, and nothing touches a private system. The editor is more visual than Zapier's and handles branching more comfortably.
You cannot self-host it, so the data-residency conversation ends where it started. For a regulated client that is usually disqualifying.
Best for
- Operations staff own the workflows day to day
- Everything involved is public SaaS
- You want branching without writing code
Not for
- Any workflow reaching a system you would not expose to the internet
- Teams who must say where data is processed
Durable execution for critical workflows
The right answer when a half-finished run is an incident. Money moved. A document filed. Temporal holds workflow state durably and replays after a failure, which no tool above offers.
It is not a Zapier replacement in shape. There is no canvas and no connector library, so an operations manager cannot read it. You are trading approachability for correctness, and that trade is only worth making when partial runs have consequences.
Best for
- Payments, billing, or anything that must not run twice
- Processes measured in days rather than seconds
- An engineering team that will own it
Not for
- Non-engineers who need to read or edit the workflow
- Simple app-to-app moves, where it is far more machinery than the job needs
- 04
Cloud-native schedulers
Step functions inside your existing cloud
Worth a look when everything already lives in one cloud and the workflow is mostly your own services talking to each other. Permissions and networking come for free, which is the awkward part elsewhere.
The catalogue is the trade. There is no library of hosted connectors, so every third-party integration is code you write and maintain.
Best for
- Workflows made of services you already run
- Teams who want one bill and one permissions model
Not for
- Connecting a form to a CRM, which is a solved problem elsewhere
- Anyone who wants a non-engineer to maintain it
What each move actually costs you
Effort, not money. What carries over, what gets rebuilt, and what you lose for good.
| Moving to | Carries over | Gets rebuilt | Lost for good |
|---|---|---|---|
| n8n | The logic and the shape of each workflow | Wiring, credentials and triggers | Somebody else running the servers |
| Make | The logic, roughly | All of the wiring | Nothing you had, since Zapier was hosted too |
| Temporal | The intent only | Every workflow, as code | The canvas a non-engineer could read |
| Cloud schedulers | Your own service calls | Every third-party connector | The connector catalogue entirely |
Automation running unattended, on our own infrastructure
Common questions
01What does moving off Zapier actually cost in effort?
Expect to rebuild the wiring and keep the thinking. Each connection has to be recreated, credentials re-entered and triggers reconnected in the new tool. The logic itself usually transfers in an afternoon per workflow, because most Zaps are short.
02Is n8n really cheaper than Zapier?
Self-hosted n8n replaces a per-task bill with a server you run. That is cheaper at volume and more expensive at low volume, because somebody has to patch, back up and upgrade it. Below a few thousand actions a month, the hosted option usually wins.
03Why is Power Automate not on this list?
Power Automate makes sense when the whole organisation already runs on Microsoft 365, and then the choice is made by licensing rather than by workflow needs. It answers a different question from the one that sends people looking for Zapier alternatives.
04Can I keep Zapier for some workflows and move others?
Yes, and it is usually the right first step. Move the high-volume or private-data workflows first, and leave the low-volume app-to-app ones where they are. Splitting by reason rather than migrating wholesale keeps the risk small.
