whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Workflow Management

n8n

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by n8n GmbH · n8n.io

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

n8n: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai n8n: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

n8n at a glance

Vendor
n8n GmbH
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
Starting price
“Starter Build and run your first workflows and agents. 20€ /mo, billed annually 2.5k workflow executions with unlimited steps Start free tri...” (vendor’s words) source, captured 1 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates n8n 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. n8n is a fair-code workflow automation platform from n8n GmbH of Berlin, with a self-hosted edition next to a managed cloud. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources

n8n alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Knows that "7,000 integrations" counts connectors nobody maintains, that "unlimited workflows" says nothing about the tasks each run consumes, and that "no-code" ends at the first API without a connector. Reads for what counts as a task, how long failed runs are kept, which model an "AI agent" step sends data to, and whether the workflows can leave the platform at all.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
Process design, forms & approvals 2.5 of 5 2 of 5
Connectors, API & on-premise reach 3 of 5 3 of 5
Execution, error handling & monitoring 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
Governance, credentials & audit trail 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
Hosting options & portability 4 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 1.5 of 5 1 of 5

Process design, forms & approvals

How this is scored

Modelling the process people take part in: a visual designer or BPMN, forms, approval steps with roles and substitutes, deadlines and escalation, and versioning of a process that is already running — judged on whether a business owner can change a process without breaking the instances in flight.

0 — Linear trigger-action chains only; no human steps, no forms and no statement on approvals or roles.

3 — A visual builder with branching and a simple approval step, but approvers are named individuals rather than roles, there are no deadlines or escalation, and changing a process has no versioning.

5 — A visual designer with conditions and parallel paths, built-in forms, approval steps assigned to roles or groups, deadlines with reminders, and versions of a process kept with the running instances on their original version.

8 — BPMN 2.0 modelling or an equivalent documented notation, substitutes and escalation chains, multi-stage approvals with four-eyes rules, forms in German with validation and file upload, a task inbox for participants, and a test or simulation mode before publishing.

10 — The process is a governed asset: version history with diff and rollback, migration of running instances to a new version documented, process analytics on cycle time and bottlenecks per step, and the design documented well enough that a business team can maintain it without the vendor.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Approvals exist, but they are improvised through a Gmail send-and-wait or a ClickUp task polled until approved, revision, rejection or timeout — the approver is whatever email address or ClickUp assignee you configure, with configurable poll interval, max attempts and reminder threshold standing in for real deadline and escalation handling. The form in the showcased process is a Google Form, and role routing is done with switch nodes reading a data table rather than platform roles or substitutes. Higher tiers add workflow history and Git version control, but we found no public information on running instances staying on their original version when a process changes, or on a task inbox for participants. 2 6 7 12

Report an error

Connectors, API & on-premise reach

How this is scored

Reaching the systems a European company actually runs: maintained connectors judged by name rather than count, a generic HTTP and webhook step, custom connectors, and a way to reach systems behind the firewall without opening it.

0 — No connectors beyond email, and no API or webhook step.

3 — A large connector count on a logo wall, with no statement of which actions each supports or who maintains them, and no generic HTTP step.

5 — Named connectors with their triggers and actions documented, including Microsoft 365 and at least one ERP or accounting system common in DACH (e.g. SAP, DATEV, Microsoft Dynamics), a generic HTTP/REST step, inbound webhooks, and a documented API to start and query workflows.

8 — Custom connectors buildable from an OpenAPI description or code, an on-premise agent or self-hosted runner reaching internal databases and file shares, SOAP and database steps, OAuth handled per connection, and connector maintenance ownership (vendor, partner or community) stated.

10 — Integration is engineered: a versioned public API with a deprecation policy, connector changelogs, rate limits per connector published, event-driven triggers rather than polling where the source allows it, and the vendor maintaining the German-market connectors (DATEV, SAP, ELO or d.velop) itself.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The captured pages give different figures for the count — "over 500 integrations" on the homepage, 772 apps listed on both the HTTP Request and Webhook pages, and "1000+ apps and services" as the reach of the generic HTTP Request node — so the big number is really one generic gateway counted many times. Underneath that, the HTTP Request and Webhook steps have documentation, Postgres and MySQL connectors are named, the public API exposes workflows and credentials endpoints, and custom nodes plus bash scripts are buildable on self-hosted, which is genuine reach into systems behind the firewall. We found no public information on SAP, DATEV or Microsoft Dynamics connectors for the DACH stack, on SOAP support, or on who maintains each connector. 1 8 9 13 2

Report an error

Execution, error handling & monitoring

How this is scored

What happens when a step fails at 3 a.m.: retries, error paths, alerting, an execution history someone can search, limits on runtime and throughput, and a status page that admits incidents.

0 — Nothing stated about failed runs; an error stops the workflow silently.

3 — Failed runs are marked and an email is sent, but retries are manual, execution history is short or undocumented, and runtime and throughput limits are unstated.

5 — Automatic retries with configurable back-off, an error path or error workflow, a searchable execution log with input and output per step, failure alerts by email or chat, and runtime, payload and rate limits documented.

8 — Replay of a failed run from the failing step, idempotency guidance, queueing and concurrency controls, execution history retention stated per plan, monitoring exportable to the customer's own tools, and a public status page with incident history and an uptime commitment.

10 — Operations are designed for production: an SLA with service credits, horizontal scaling or high-availability setup documented for self-hosted installs, dead-letter handling, end-to-end tracing across workflows, and post-incident reports published.

Report an error

The Skeptic

A designated error workflow emails the failed workflow's name, error source and a machine-readable JSON error, single steps can be re-run instead of the whole workflow, executions are searchable by the data they contain, and per-plan limits on duration, concurrency, saved executions and log retention of 7 days, 30 days or unlimited are published. But we found no public information on automatic retries with configurable back-off, a public status page with incident history, or any uptime commitment — the only SLA mentioned covers support. OpenTelemetry tracing exists as a preview on self-hosted only, and queue mode for scaling sits on the Business tier. 1 2 11 2

Report an error

Governance, credentials & audit trail

How this is scored

Keeping automation from becoming shadow IT: roles and permissions, SSO, where connection credentials are stored, separate environments with controlled publishing, an audit trail of changes and approvals, and what the execution log retains of the payload. An approval record is also a record of employees' behaviour, so what the trail captures matters to a works council.

0 — Single-user accounts or one shared login; no roles, no audit log and no statement on credential storage.

3 — Admin and member roles and shared team folders, but credentials are visible to anyone who can edit a workflow, there is no audit log, and execution payloads are kept without a stated period.

5 — Role-based permissions per workflow or folder, SSO via SAML or OIDC, credentials stored encrypted and usable without being revealed, an audit log of workflow changes, and the retention period of execution data stated.

8 — Separate development, test and production environments with a publishing approval, SCIM provisioning, external secret stores supported, payload redaction or log-off per workflow, configurable execution data retention, and the audit trail exportable — with the fields it records about users described.

10 — Governance a works council and an auditor can both sign off: field-level masking of personal data in logs, delegated administration per department, a central inventory of every workflow and connection with its owner, certifications published (ISO 27001 or SOC 2), and documentation of what the platform records about individual users.

Report an error

The Skeptic

SSO with SAML and LDAP, admin roles, an audit log, an encrypted credential store that stays encrypted even when audited, external secret stores, enforced two-factor authentication and execution data redaction are all listed, with execution log retention stated per plan. Separate dev and prod environments with Git and workflow diff exist on Business, but we found no public information on a publishing approval between environments, SCIM provisioning, whether the audit trail is exportable, or which fields it records about individual users — which is what a works council would ask. Self-hosted instances transmit usage data including user identifiers and workflow metrics unless the customer opts out. 2 3 13 2

Report an error

Hosting options & portability

How this is scored

Where the engine runs and whether the workflows can leave: cloud regions, self-hosted or on-premise editions, the licence of the engine, and export of workflow definitions in a format another tool or a later version can read.

0 — Cloud-only with no stated region, and no export of workflow definitions.

3 — Cloud-only with a region named, and an export that produces a proprietary file only the same product can import.

5 — An EU cloud region selectable, workflow definitions exportable as documented JSON or BPMN 2.0, and an API to read definitions and execution history for backup.

8 — A self-hosted or on-premise edition with its system requirements documented, workflow definitions versionable in Git, the engine's licence published, and a documented migration path between cloud and self-hosted in both directions.

10 — The customer owns its automation: an open-source or source-available engine, definitions in an open standard executable elsewhere, air-gapped installation supported, and a stated exit process that hands back definitions, credentials metadata and execution history in documented formats.

Report an error

The Skeptic

A source-available engine with 200k+ community members, deployable with Docker and even air-gapped, with workflow definitions exportable from the cloud, importable into self-hosted, and versionable in Git on higher tiers — the automation can genuinely leave the platform. The cloud-to-self-hosted migration is manual and one-directional ("there is no automated way to migrate from n8n Cloud to self-hosted"), credentials "cannot be exported from Cloud due to security reasons", and we found no public information on a documented path back from self-hosted to cloud or on the cloud offering's hosting region. 1 2 15 1

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity is, where workflows execute and where execution logs with their payload copies are stored, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI model providers behind any AI steps. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. A self-hosted edition counts only for the data that actually stays on the customer's servers.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, execution location unstated, and subprocessors unnamed.

3 — An EU region offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI steps send data to model providers of unstated location.

5 — EU execution and log storage as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI steps, support access, telemetry — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.

8 — EU execution on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published with locations including AI providers, a DPA covering execution payloads, and a self-hosted option that sends no workflow data to the vendor.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, AI steps runnable on European or self-hosted models, certification published, and a self-hosted edition that works without any call home.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The sovereignty pipeline found no verifiable information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership or data residency, and the captured pages name no execution location and publish no subprocessor list. AI steps take credentials for Groq, Mistral, OpenRouter and OpenAI with no statement of where those model providers process the data, and we found no public information on a data-processing agreement covering execution payloads. Self-hosting with telemetry opt-out and air-gap support does keep the workflow data itself on the customer's servers, which is the one solid point in an otherwise undocumented chain. 1 3 6

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the monthly cost of their own processes from public pages alone: what the billing unit is (task, operation, execution, run, user or flow) and what counts as one, the allowance per tier, overage prices, and the cost of premium connectors, self-hosting, environments and AI steps.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — A starting price exists, but the billing unit is undefined or what counts as one task or execution is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.

5 — Tier prices public with the billing unit defined and the monthly allowance given, but at least one commonly needed piece (overage, premium connectors, extra environments, self-hosted licence, AI steps) is unpriced.

8 — Every tier priced publicly with its unit, allowance and limits, overage priced per unit, premium connector and add-on prices listed, self-hosted licensing stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.

10 — Complete price computability: the monthly cost derivable for a given number of workflows, runs and steps per run, with a published calculator or worked examples, every add-on and overage on a public page, and the effect of loops and retries on the count explained.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The plan pages publish the allowances — concurrent executions, saved executions, storage, log retention, assistant credits, "unlimited users & workflows" — but we found no public information on any monetary figure: no tier prices, no overage price, no self-hosted licence fee. The metered unit is evidently executions ("reset your current month's execution count"), yet we found no public information on what counts as one execution or how loops, sub-workflows and retries affect the count, so a buyer cannot compute a monthly cost from these pages. Procurement is sales-assisted with pay-by-invoice on the enterprise side. 2 10 2

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about n8n

Is n8n European?

Yes. whats-best.ai classifies n8n as EU-Made.

Where does n8n store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

Does n8n have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to n8n?

As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Tray.ai (3/5), Camunda (2.5/5) and Frends (2.5/5) highest among the other 16 Workflow Management products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Camunda (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: n8n alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about n8n? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (15)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Legal notice n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Legal hub with terms of service n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Process design, forms & approvals — found from sitemap n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Connectors, API & on-premise reach — found from sitemap n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap support.n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Execution, error handling & monitoring — found from sitemap n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Governance, credentials & audit trail — found from sitemap n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Hosting options & portability — found from sitemap support.n8n.io Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →