n8n is great until the graph gets big or the connector doesn't exist. Ballet writes the integration you need as code, runs deterministic-where-it-matters workflows, and catches breakage with evals. No 100-node ceiling.
 Ballet | n8n | |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Deterministic workflows + agents, written as code | Visual node graphs |
| New integration | Generated on demand against any API | Connector library or manual HTTP nodes |
| Complex multi-system work | Scales, written as code | Caps out past ~100 nodes |
| Output when it matters | Deterministic, agentic where it helps | Deterministic, brittle on upgrades |
| Breakage | Evals on every step; auto-patched with a diff | Breaks silently when an API changes |
| Review & version control | Generated code, version-controlled | Visual graph / JSON export |
| Time to first workflow | 30 minutes | Hours–days |
No connector? Ballet writes it in seconds against any system with an endpoint: SAP, internal ERPs, legacy tools. You're never blocked waiting for an integration to be added.
Workflows are generated as reviewable, version-controlled code. Your engineers read the diff; your security team approves the run. No 200-node canvas no one can audit.
Every step is checked. When an upstream API changes or data drifts, Ballet patches it and shows you the diff, instead of failing silently in production.
For the multi-system, business-critical workflows teams actually get stuck on: yes, and it writes the connectors n8n doesn't have. n8n is fine for simple, well-supported automations.
No. Most teams keep n8n for the simple stuff and bring Ballet in for the integrations that hit the node ceiling or don't have a connector.
Yes where it matters. Ballet runs deterministic code on the steps that need 100% accuracy, with agentic reasoning only on the steps that benefit.
It generates real code, version-controlled, with evals on each step. You review a diff in your own VCS rather than a sprawling canvas.
A 30-minute working session on your real systems. No SOW.
