Make.com vs n8n for SEO Automation

Make.com and n8n are both capable automation platforms, but they diverge sharply on pricing model, hosting options, and how they handle the HTTP requests that SEO workflows depend on. Make charges per operation with a visual-first interface starting at $9/mo. n8n charges per execution on cloud (EUR 24/mo) or runs free if you self-host. The right choice depends on your workflow volume and technical comfort.

Pricing breakdown for SEO workflows

SEO automation is operation-heavy. A typical daily rank-tracking workflow that checks 50 keywords involves: 1 trigger + 50 HTTP requests + 50 data transforms + 1 database write = 102 operations. Run that daily for a month and you have 3,060 operations.

• Make.com Core ($9/mo): 10,000 operations/month. The 3,060-operation workflow fits comfortably. But add a second workflow -- say, weekly competitor monitoring with 200 keywords -- and you hit 6,260 operations/month. Still within limits, but add content brief generation and you are pushing toward the Pro plan at $16/mo.
• n8n Cloud Starter (EUR 24/mo): 2,500 executions/ month. One execution can contain multiple nodes, so the same 50-keyword workflow counts as 1 execution per run, or 30/month. Much more headroom. But complex workflows with sub-workflows count separately.
• n8n self-hosted (free): No execution limits. You pay for the server (a $5/mo VPS handles most SEO workloads). Full control over scheduling, data storage, and uptime. Requires Docker knowledge.

Workflow building: visual vs flexible

Make's interface is cleaner for non-technical users. Drag a module, configure it, connect it. The HTTP module has a GUI for headers, body, and authentication. Everything is point-and-click.

n8n's interface is functional but more cluttered. It exposes more options per node, which is powerful but overwhelming for beginners. The HTTP Request node has tabs for authentication, query parameters, body, pagination, and retry -- all visible at once.

For SEO-specific workflows, n8n has an edge: its Function node lets you write JavaScript inline, which is useful for parsing SERP responses, calculating position changes, or formatting data for Google Sheets. Make has a similar "Custom JavaScript" module, but it is only available on the Teams plan ($29/mo+).

Connecting a search API in Make

{
  "module": "HTTP - Make a request",
  "config": {
    "method": "POST",
    "url": "https://api.scavio.dev/api/v1/search",
    "headers": [
      { "name": "x-api-key", "value": "{{your_api_key}}" },
      { "name": "Content-Type", "value": "application/json" }
    ],
    "body": {
      "query": "{{keyword}}",
      "num_results": 10
    },
    "parse_response": true
  }
}

Connecting a search API in n8n

{
  "node": "HTTP Request",
  "config": {
    "method": "POST",
    "url": "https://api.scavio.dev/api/v1/search",
    "authentication": "genericCredentialType",
    "genericAuthType": "httpHeaderAuth",
    "headerParameterName": "x-api-key",
    "headerValue": "={{$credentials.scavioApiKey}}",
    "sendBody": true,
    "bodyContentType": "json",
    "jsonBody": {
      "query": "={{ $json.keyword }}",
      "num_results": 10
    }
  }
}

Error handling differences

This is where the platforms diverge meaningfully for SEO automation:

• Make: Error handling uses "routes." You add an error handler route to any module. If the HTTP request fails, the error route runs. Clean, visual, easy to understand. But Make stops the entire scenario on unhandled errors by default, which means one failed keyword check can halt a 50-keyword batch.
• n8n: Error handling uses a dedicated Error Trigger node or per-node "Continue on Fail" setting. More granular -- you can let individual keyword checks fail without stopping the batch. But configuring it requires touching each node individually.

SEO workflow comparison table

• Daily rank tracking (50 keywords): Make uses 102 ops/day, n8n uses 1 execution/day. Winner: n8n on cost.
• Weekly competitor monitoring: Make uses ~200 ops/week, n8n uses 1-4 executions/week. Winner: n8n on cost.
• Content brief generation: Make is easier to build visually, n8n is more flexible with inline JS. Winner: depends on technical skill.
• Multi-step pipeline (search + enrich + store): Make counts each step as an operation. n8n counts the whole pipeline as one execution. Winner: n8n.

The self-hosting advantage for SEO

SEO data is proprietary. Rank positions, keyword lists, and competitor analysis are competitive intelligence. Self-hosting n8n on a $5/mo VPS means this data never leaves your infrastructure. Make.com stores all workflow data on their servers.

# Self-host n8n with Docker in 2 minutes
docker run -d --name n8n \
  -p 5678:5678 \
  -v n8n_data:/home/node/.n8n \
  -e N8N_BASIC_AUTH_ACTIVE=true \
  -e N8N_BASIC_AUTH_USER=admin \
  -e N8N_BASIC_AUTH_PASSWORD=changeme \
  n8nio/n8n

Recommendation

Use Make if you are non-technical, run fewer than 5 workflows, and value a clean UI over flexibility. The $9/mo Core plan handles light SEO automation well. Use n8n if you run operation-heavy SEO workflows, want inline code for data transformation, or want to self-host for cost and privacy reasons. For most SEO automation specifically, n8n's execution-based pricing and self-host option make it the more cost-effective choice.