Choose the least complex approach that can meet the acceptance tests and support requirements. This is a recommended architecture comparison, not a claim that one technology is always cheaper or safer.
| Approach | Consider it when… | Procurement burden | Essential exit asset |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native configuration | Required actions are supported within the incumbent system | Verify plans, settings, permissions and vendor support | Configuration record, templates and staff instructions |
| Standard managed connector | Supported applications expose the needed triggers and actions | Verify field mapping, limits, failed-run handling and ownership | Client-controlled accounts and documented mappings |
| Agency-managed low-code workflow | Several steps require custom validation or coordination | Require monitoring, change control, credentials management and recovery | Exportable workflows, operating instructions and dependency list |
| Self-hosted automation | There is a justified hosting or control requirement and competent operational ownership | Allocate patching, backups, availability, security and incident response | Infrastructure configuration, backups and a tested restoration process |
| Bespoke application or integration | Supported products cannot meet a valuable, material requirement | Review design, tests, source-code rights and maintenance obligations | Usable code rights, documentation, build instructions and handover |
For example, n8n documents self-hosted Community, Business and Enterprise editions. That is a deployment and licensing choice—not evidence that hosting or operating the complete workflow is free. (docs.n8n.io)
Our buying rule: never accept ‘we use Make’, ‘we use n8n’ or ‘we use a leading voice platform’ as evidence of HVAC competence. Ask the implementer to demonstrate your exact workflow and name the person responsible when it fails.
Sources cited on this page
- docs.n8n.io ↗docs.n8n.io
PUT THE RESEARCH TO WORK