The thing that separates n8n, Zapier, and Make isn't features or polish — it's the billing unit. So I wrote 60 lines of Python to find out where the unit actually bites.
I run the entire content pipeline for a small publication on self-hosted n8n: 10 production workflows, around 209 nodes, on a single cloud box. The most-asked question I get about that setup isn't "why n8n" — it's "wouldn't Zapier have been easier?"
Easier, yes. But the reason I didn't reach for a hosted per-task tool has nothing to do with features and everything to do with one number that nobody puts on the comparison page: the billing unit.
So I modeled it. Here's the short version, then the code.
The three tools bill on three different units
n8n bills per execution — one run of a whole workflow counts as 1, no matter how many nodes it has.
Zapier bills per task — every action that runs is 1.
Make bills per operation — every module run is 1 (now metered as credits).
That sounds like a pricing-page footnote. It's actually the whole decision. n8n's own . The one-line version: the best tool isn't the cheapest, it's the one billed like you build.
The 60-line model is reproducible — clone the quotas, swap in your own workflow node counts, and find your own crossover before you commit to a meter.
SOCIAL SHARE CARD GENERATOR