Price comparison misleading?

I am not sure if that graphic is misleading. N8N Starter caps at 2.5k executions and Pro at 10k/50k.

@Niklas_Hatje perhaps you want to share some more detail around our pricing here?

1 Like

Hi @ohlr,

thanks so much for bringing this up. I think the image tries to show that n8n charges users per execution and not per operation, like Zapier or Make do. To give you an example:

  • Let’s say you have a workflow that includes 10 nodes. Make and Zapier would charge 10 operations for this workflow every time it runs. n8n only charges one execution, no matter how many node that includes (which is why the image sais no limits on operations)

I do have to agree that the image is a little misleading though, especially the “Charge per workflow, no limit on operations” because in most cases, you can only get so many operations in 2.5k executions.

I have forwarded this topic internally and we will rework this image. Thanks so much for posting this!


Actually, I have to correct my answer from above, because Make and Zapier charge even more. They do not only charge you one task/operation per node, but also per item that this node uses. So to go back to my example:

  • You have a workflow that includes 10 nodes & it queries 1,000 rows from a Google Sheet in the beginning and the processes those rows. Zapier and Make will charge you 1,000 tasks/operations per node, which will sum up to 10,000 tasks/operation for one workflow run here. With n8n it’s just 1 execution.

Even though that’s crazy it doesn’t change what I said about the graph in my previous post, so we’re still taking that off and think about a better way :slight_smile:

1 Like

@Niklas_Hatje, just to clarify I am totally happy with N8N and the tiers are fine.

But if usage goes up, prices go up with N8N too and there is no explaining text below the image that says limit to 2500 executions. I.e. I was not aware there is a difference between “operation” and “executions” and then there’s “tasks” a term that apparently only zapier uses.


Fully with you @ohlr! That’s why I really think we need to change this graphic.