PocketBase vs SeaTable
| Tagline | Single-file open-source backend: SQLite database, auth, file storage, realtime | Spreadsheet-database for teams with unlimited rows and no API call limits |
| Category | Databases & Spreadsheets | Databases & Spreadsheets |
| Replaces | Airtable, Google Sheets, Retool | Airtable, Google Sheets, Smartsheet |
| GitHub stars | 60k | 706 |
| Language | Go | Python |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 1/5 Effortless | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Manual Docker | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 7 days ago | 8 months ago |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
PocketBase
- SQLite single-file storage is not suitable for high write-concurrency production workloads
- No built-in spreadsheet-style grid view for non-developers; admin UI is developer-focused
- Horizontal scaling requires additional infrastructure; no native clustering support
SeaTable
- Core dtable-server component is proprietary, so it is not fully open-source.
- The public GitHub repo is mostly docs/installer rather than full source code.
- Smaller community and ecosystem than Airtable or NocoDB.
- Advanced features and higher row limits require paid Enterprise licensing.
Bottom line
Choose PocketBase if you want the lower-effort setup; choose PocketBase for the larger community and ecosystem. PocketBase has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
PocketBase
Single-file open-source backend: SQLite database, auth, file storage, realtime
SeaTable
Spreadsheet-database for teams with unlimited rows and no API call limits