GTM AI Index
Index GTM data and infrastructure Automation & iPaaS › n8n vs Celigo
Workflow automation and iPaaS · September 2026 Edition

n8n vs Celigo

One of twelve models named n8n first on the direct prompt; one named Celigo. n8n was named by twelve of the twelve models and Celigo by eleven and n8n carries 44 labels and Celigo 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.

n8n

accepted challenger

Berlin, Spain, founded 2019. Named in two categories this edition.

Celigo

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share12%12%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate18%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#4A position in a field of 12; printed, not drawn.
Labels4418A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, n8n reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Workato was named alongside these two in ten of the twelve direct answers. Workato vs n8n · Workato vs Celigo · Make vs n8n

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the workflow automation and ipaas page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
n8nFirst choices, of twelve modelsCeligo
Direct11
Paraphrase051 against n8n
Comparative10
Budget-constrained50
Scale-constrained00
Negative007 against n8n
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where n8n and Celigo stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
n8n Celigo first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, n8n on the left and Celigo on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where n8n and Celigo stood in it.

n8n first, Celigo not the choice

1 of 12 modelsCeligo was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Kimi K2Make, n8n alternatives: Workato, Zapier

Celigo first, n8n not the choice

1 of 12 modelsn8n was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
DeepSeek V4 FlashCeligo, Workato alternatives: Boomi, Jitterbit, Tray.ai

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Gemini 3.5 FlashWorkato alternatives: Celigo, Make, Tray.ai
Perplexity SonarWorkato alternatives: HubSpot Operations Hub, Make, n8n
Grok 4.1 FastWorkato alternatives: Boomi, Celigo, Make, Tray.ai
GLM 4.7 FlashXMake alternatives: n8n

Neither was named

6 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5Workato alternatives: Kissflow, Make, Microsoft Power Automate, Zapier
GPT-5.4 miniWorkato alternatives: Boomi, MuleSoft
Mistral SmallWorkato alternatives: Jitterbit Harmony, Tray.ai
Llama 4 MaverickBoomi, SnapLogic, Workato
Qwen 3.7 FlashMake alternatives: Tray.ai, Workato
MiniMax M2.5Boomi, SnapLogic alternatives: Make, Microsoft Power Automate

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
n8n2%#4 of 8
Celigo2%#– of 8
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
n8n12%#3 of 12
Celigo12%#4 of 12
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Celigo leads by two points.
Celigo4%#– of 11
n8n2%#6 of 11
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about n8n

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“n8n ⚠️ SECURITY CONCERNS ... Webhook URLs have been actively abused by threat actors since October 2025” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Excellent if you have genuine DevOps capacity... A trap if you're a non-technical team looking to save money.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Be cautious of Make (Integromat) and n8n ... they expect you to understand data structures like JSON” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“while n8n is the strategic choice if you have technical resources and want to scale without pricing surprises” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice
“Privacy, Custom Code, or AI | n8n | Can be self-hosted securely, easily handles custom JavaScript/Python” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Make or n8n offer the best balance of features and cost, depending on your technical capabilities.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Celigo

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“Best Overall Balance: Celigo ... strikes a perfect middle ground between ease of use and power.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Choose Celigo if you want faster time-to-value and lower operational overhead” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“Celigo: Best Overall for ERP-Centric & B2B E-Commerce Operations” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.