Activepieces vs n8n (2026): Open-Source Automation Compared

Activepieces vs n8n comes down to license and builder style: pick Activepieces if you need an MIT-licensed core you can modify, embed or resell, or a step-by-step builder for a non-technical team, and pick n8n if you want the deeper node canvas, the larger template library and its AI Agent node. Both self-host for free with no cap on runs, and both keep SSO, projects and Git sync for paying customers.

A documentation-based comparison, not a hands-on test: we did not run test instances or measure memory use, so where a vendor publishes requirements we quote those. Checked on 11 October 2026 against Activepieces' pricing, license, open-source, self-hosting, Agents and pieces pages and its repository; and n8n's pricing, license FAQ, edition comparison, install docs, integrations and templates directories and its repository.

These two get compared because they look alike from a distance: a visual builder, a hosted version, and code you can run on your own server. Up close they made opposite bets. n8n built the bigger tool and protected it with a license that limits how others can sell it. Activepieces put its core under MIT and charges for the layer teams need on top. Which bet suits you depends on what you plan to do with the tool, so this page starts with the table and then takes the differences one at a time. For n8n itself, our n8n hub is the starting point.

Activepieces vs n8n: the head-to-head

Two notes on reading it. The integration counts are not the same unit: each vendor counts its own directory its own way, and n8n's homepage says "over 500 integrations" while its directory lists 2,329. Treat the numbers as scale and check your own app list. And n8n prices in euros, Activepieces in US dollars.

License: MIT core vs the Sustainable Use License

This is the difference that cannot be worked around later, so settle it first. Activepieces' license file puts everything outside two enterprise folders under MIT, and its docs summarise the result: the only requirement is to include the license notice when you distribute it. n8n's license FAQ gives a one-line test instead: "If workflows are only created or modified by you or people in your organization, you can use n8n under the Community license for free."

The n8n FAQ is specific that the interface does not change the answer: letting end users build or configure workflows through your product is out, "whether via a custom UI, our API, MCP, or an AI agent acting on the user's behalf". For an agency that keeps clients out of the editor, none of this bites, and the FAQ says there is no limit on the number of clients served from one instance. For a founder who wants workflow building as a feature of their own product, it decides the matter in Activepieces' favour. One caveat on that side: MIT gives you the legal right to host for many clients, but the feature that separates them, projects, is in the paid edition.

Pricing: credits vs executions

Both bill per run, not per step, which sets them apart from Zapier and Make. A ten-step workflow that runs once is one Activepieces credit or one n8n execution. The difference is how many runs the entry plans include, and whether there is a free plan at all.

• AI steps. On Activepieces' built-in models, an AI step costs 2 credits on a fast model, 10 on a smart one and 20 on a frontier one, because Activepieces pays the provider. With your own keys, on Plus and above, every AI step drops to 1 credit. On n8n an AI step adds no executions, and your model provider bills you directly.
• Going over. Activepieces charges $0.007 per extra credit on Plus and Team; on Free, extra runs wait for credits to refresh. n8n does not queue: its help center says over-limit executions "fail immediately with an error".
• Team features. Activepieces Team is $200 a month flat for 25 users with SSO. n8n's SSO starts at the Business plan, €667 a month billed annually, which is a license for self-hosted instances.

For a small team on hosted plans, Activepieces is the cheaper tool at almost every volume. n8n's answer is self-hosting, where executions are uncapped; our n8n Cloud vs self-hosted guide covers when that pays.

Activepieces self-hosted vs n8n self-hosted

Both install with one command and both are free to run. The stacks behind the command differ, and so does what the free edition holds back.

# Activepieces: Docker Compose stack (app, worker, Postgres, Redis)
# Needs Docker Compose v2 and at least 2 vCPU and 4 GB of RAM
curl -fsSL https://get.activepieces.com | sh
# then open http://localhost:8080 ; the first account becomes the administrator

# n8n: one-line setup (n8n on SQLite plus the Assistant sandbox services)
curl -fsSL https://get.n8n.io | sh
# then open http://localhost:5678 and create the owner account

Both commands are from the vendors' install docs, checked against the pages and not executed for this article. What they set up:

• Activepieces starts production-shaped: an app, a worker, PostgreSQL and Redis, with a stated minimum of 2 vCPU and 4 GB of RAM. A single-container "hobbyist" install exists, on an embedded database, and the docs warn that it "cannot scale, cannot move to Enterprise, and moving off it means starting over". Execution data is kept 30 days by default.
• n8n starts small: one container on SQLite. That is lighter to run, and n8n's own guide calls SQLite fine for trying things out and recommends Postgres for production. The one-line setup also starts the sandbox services for n8n Assistant, and n8n asks for 4 GB and 2 vCPUs with those running. Executions are pruned after 14 days by default.
• Backups follow the same rule on both: the database plus the encryption key. Activepieces' docs say stored connections cannot be decrypted without AP_ENCRYPTION_KEY, "even from a full database backup"; n8n's say the same of its key in the .n8n folder.
• The free edition. Activepieces' Community edition leaves out projects, SSO, audit logs and Git Sync. n8n's leaves out SSO, sharing, projects, environments, Git version control and more; our list of n8n self-hosted limitations goes through each one.

So Activepieces asks for more server on day one and n8n asks for more decisions later. If you go the n8n route, our n8n Docker Compose setup guide is the production version of that one-liner.

AI agents and MCP

Both products now lead with AI, and both speak MCP. The designs differ in a way that matters when you self-host.

• n8n: the agent is a node. The AI Agent node sits inside a workflow with a chat model, memory and tools attached, and its Tools Agent can call other workflows as tools. MCP comes as nodes (an MCP Client and an MCP Server Trigger) and as an instance-level MCP server that lets a client such as Claude Code build and run workflows; our n8n MCP server guide shows the setup. None of this appears on n8n's list of features missing from the free edition.
• Activepieces: the agent is a colleague. Its docs describe an agent as "someone you brief rather than something you configure". Any action from its 760+ pieces becomes a tool, an agent can run as a step in a flow and return structured fields, and a built-in MCP server lets AI assistants build flows. The catch for self-hosters is in the pricing FAQ, which lists "running Agents and Chat" among the things paying adds over the Community edition.

If your plan is a free self-hosted instance running agents, that puts n8n ahead on paper. If you want non-developers to set up agents on a hosted plan, Activepieces' approach is the gentler one. Either way the model bill is separate; our LLM API pricing comparison has current rates.

Activepieces vs n8n on Reddit: what the public record shows

People searching for Activepieces vs n8n on Reddit usually want a view that is not the vendor's. We cannot verify anecdotes, so here is what anyone can check.

• Size of the community. On 11 October 2026, n8n's GitHub repository had about 207,000 stars and Activepieces' about 25,000. n8n's repository dates from June 2019, Activepieces' from December 2022.
• Maturity signals. n8n is on version 2.42 with 3.0 in preparation; Activepieces is on 0.92. Both ship weekly. A 0.x version number usually signals that the maintainers still expect breaking changes, and Activepieces keeps a breaking-changes page to read before each upgrade.
• Integrations. Activepieces lists 765 pieces with 6,111 actions and says every piece is included on every plan, self-hosted too. Pieces are TypeScript npm packages, so writing a missing one is a normal development task. n8n's directory lists 2,329 entries, and its HTTP Request node covers anything with an API.
• Templates. n8n's site lists 13,205 community workflows. Activepieces has a template library inside the app and does not publish a count we could find.

The honest reading: n8n has the larger ecosystem by a wide margin, which shows up as more templates, more tutorials and more people who have already hit your problem. Activepieces is smaller and moving quickly.

Which one should you pick?

If neither fits, the field is wider than these two. Our n8n alternatives comparison sorts twelve tools by the reason people leave n8n, and Activepieces vs Zapier covers the hosted, per-task end of the market.

One more option deserves a mention. If the license question came up because you want to sell automation as a product, a workflow tool may be the wrong foundation altogether. The AI SaaS Builder program covers building that product directly: Supabase for data and sign-in, the Claude API for the AI feature, deployment on Vercel and Stripe for billing. It has no lessons on n8n or Activepieces.

Activepieces vs n8n: FAQ