PocketBase vs Supabase
| Tagline | Single-file open-source backend: SQLite database, auth, file storage, realtime | Open-source Firebase alternative built on PostgreSQL with realtime and auth |
| Category | Databases & Spreadsheets | Databases & Spreadsheets |
| Replaces | Airtable, Google Sheets, Retool | Airtable, Google Sheets, Retool |
| GitHub stars | 43k | 78k |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 1/5 Effortless | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Manual Docker | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 1 month ago | 17 days 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
Supabase
- Self-hosted Docker Compose stack is complex: 8+ services including Kong, GoTrue, PostgREST, Realtime
- Studio table editor is less polished than Airtable UX for non-technical users
- Edge Functions are limited to Deno; no Node.js runtime in the self-hosted edition
Bottom line
Choose PocketBase if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Supabase for the larger community and ecosystem. Supabase 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
Supabase
Open-source Firebase alternative built on PostgreSQL with realtime and auth