Xano + n8n

Because the two layers automate different things. Xano background tasks handle work inside your own backend: scheduled cleanup, recurring jobs, computations over your data, and anything whose inputs and outputs both live in Xano. n8n handles actions in other systems: posting to Slack, creating CRM records, sending email sequences, syncing spreadsheets, with retries, branches, and its 400+ integrations already built. You can hand-build each of those integrations in Xano function stacks, but every one is custom code to maintain. The rule of thumb: logic about your data stays in Xano; anything that reaches into another tool goes to n8n.

Two subscriptions, both with free tiers for building. Xano's free plan carries 100,000 database records with rate-limited APIs (10 requests per 20 seconds); production realistically lands on Essential at $85 a month billed yearly, with Pro at $224 for team scale. n8n is the flexible half: self-hosted is free with unlimited workflows, or cloud plans run from $20 (Starter, 2,500 executions) to $50 (Pro, 10,000) a month billed yearly. A working production pairing is around $85 to $105 a month, dominated by the Xano bill; self-hosting n8n trims the automation side to zero if you will run the container yourself. See the Pricing section below for the breakdown.

In both directions over plain HTTP. Xano pushes: a background task or an addon endpoint calls an n8n webhook URL with a JSON payload describing the event. n8n pulls: its HTTP node calls Xano REST endpoints with an API key stored in n8n credentials, reading or writing records as part of a workflow. The pattern that keeps this healthy is push for events, pull for data: let Xano notify n8n when something happens, and let n8n read detail records only when a workflow step needs them. Polling Xano from n8n on a timer works but walks straight into Xano's rate limits at higher volumes. One API key per n8n instance, stored in credentials, keeps the audit trail clean on the Xano side.

The layers exit at different costs. Xano is a REST API over PostgreSQL, so a coded backend can call the same endpoints during a migration, and the data itself leaves as a standard Postgres dump. n8n exports workflows as JSON and its self-hosted edition is free forever, so the automation layer can simply keep running unchanged while everything around it is rebuilt. What does not survive is the visual builders themselves: the function stacks and the n8n flow editor are replaced by real code, which is the rebuild the cons list is honest about. The pragmatic path is incremental: put new logic in code first, retire the corresponding Xano endpoints behind it, and let n8n keep triggering both during the transition.

Yes, and both are simpler on day one: fewer moving parts, faster first workflow, no self-hosting decision. n8n earns its extra complexity on three axes. Self-hosting is free and keeps event payloads with customer data inside your infrastructure, which Zapier and Make do not offer. Pricing scales per workflow execution rather than per operation, so a workflow with ten steps costs one execution in n8n and ten operations in Make or Zapier. And n8n has code-step escapes (JavaScript and Python nodes) for the branch no connector covers. For a handful of simple, low-volume automations, Zapier or Make is the lighter choice; once volume, data residency, or custom logic enters the picture, n8n is the one that does not need replacing.