PocketBase vs undb
| Tagline | Single-file open-source backend: SQLite database, auth, file storage, realtime | Private-first, self-hosted no-code database and backend-as-a-service on SQLite |
| Category | Databases & Spreadsheets | Databases & Spreadsheets |
| Replaces | Airtable, Google Sheets, Retool | Airtable |
| GitHub stars | 60k | 3k |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 1/5 Effortless | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Manual Docker | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 7 days ago | 1 year 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
undb
- Far fewer features than Airtable; no automations marketplace or advanced views.
- Single-author project with a smaller community and less battle-testing.
- Real-time collaboration and permissions are basic.
- SQLite backend limits very large or high-concurrency workloads.
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
undb
Private-first, self-hosted no-code database and backend-as-a-service on SQLite