PocketBase vs Supabase (2026)
A side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, licensing, and self-hosting.
Bottom line: choose PocketBase for the simplest possible self-hosted backend for a solo project; choose Supabase when you need real SQL power, horizontal scaling, or a managed hosting path as the project grows.
PocketBase packs SQLite, authentication, realtime subscriptions, file storage, and an admin UI into a single Go binary with zero external dependencies — it runs comfortably on a $5/month VPS or even a Raspberry Pi, and there's no managed cloud tier at all, so you fully own hosting and backups. Its SQLite foundation puts a real ceiling on write concurrency, and its single-node architecture rules out horizontal scaling, which matters once a project outgrows a side-project's traffic.
Supabase is built on full Postgres, giving you the entire SQL and extension ecosystem instead of a lightweight embedded database, plus Row Level Security that moves authorization into the database itself. It's Apache-2.0 licensed and self-hostable with one Docker Compose command, or usable as a managed service — though the free managed tier pauses inactive projects after a week, and realtime/edge functions have a steeper learning curve than PocketBase's simplicity.
For a solo developer's weekend project, PocketBase's single-binary simplicity is hard to beat. For anything expected to scale past one server or need real relational features, Supabase is the safer long-term foundation.
PocketBase
Single-file open-source backend — SQLite, auth, realtime, and admin UI packed into one Go binary.
Pros
- Zero external dependencies — one binary is the entire production backend
- Tiny resource footprint runs comfortably on a $5/month VPS or a Raspberry Pi
- MIT license with no usage caps, no telemetry, and no managed-tier required
Cons
- SQLite write concurrency ceiling makes it unsuitable for high-write production workloads
- No managed cloud offering — you own hosting, backups, and all upgrade operations
Supabase
Open-source Firebase alternative built on Postgres with auth, storage, realtime, and edge functions.
Pros
- Full SQL and the entire Postgres extension ecosystem — no NoSQL trade-offs
- Apache-2.0 licensed and self-hostable with a single Docker Compose command
- Row Level Security moves authorization into the database, not scattered across API handlers
Cons
- Free tier pauses inactive projects after one week, breaking always-on demos
- Realtime and edge functions have a steeper learning curve than Firebase equivalents
PocketBase vs Supabase: spec comparison
| Spec | PocketBase | Supabase |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Starting price | Free / self-host | Free / self-host |
| Pricing model | open-source | open-core |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| Platforms | web, self-hosted, linux, macos, windows | web, self-hosted, docker |
| Founded | 2022 | 2020 |
| GitHub stars | 59,349 | 105,048 |
FAQ
PocketBase vs Supabase: which is better?
Neither is universally better. PocketBase (Free / self-host) suits Solo developers, indie hackers, and small teams who need a complete self-hosted backend with zero infrastructure complexity.; Supabase (Free / self-host) suits Teams migrating away from Firebase who want relational data, SQL power, self-hosting control, and a familiar BaaS feature set.. The spec table above breaks down the differences.
Is PocketBase or Supabase cheaper?
Both start at the same price (Free / self-host).