PocketBase vs Supabase

Last reviewed Aug 26, 2026 · 579 words

Sixty-four megabytes against four gigabytes. That's the catalogue's minimum-RAM line for these two Firebase alternatives, and it summarises the whole decision: PocketBase is a backend you run, Supabase is a platform you operate. Both give you a database with instant APIs, authentication, realtime subscriptions, and file storage. What differs is how much machine, and how much of your attention, each one wants.

What actually lands on your server

PocketBase is one Go binary embedding SQLite. Run ./pocketbase serve, and you get a REST and realtime API on port 8090 with an admin dashboard at /_/. Backup means copying the pb_data directory. The catalogue rates it Easy, which undersells it; this is about the least ceremony any self-hosted backend asks of you. Docker exists but is optional.

Self-hosted Supabase is a Docker Compose stack of roughly a dozen containers: Postgres itself, plus separate services for auth, the auto-generated APIs, realtime, storage, edge functions, an API gateway, and the Studio dashboard. The catalogue's Hard rating and 4096 MB floor are both honest, and the ongoing cost is real too — upgrading a dozen coordinated services is nothing like replacing one binary. It's also fair to say the hosted product is clearly Supabase's priority, and the self-hosted experience trails it in polish and docs.

The database decides more than the feature list

Embedded SQLite means PocketBase is single-node by design: no horizontal scaling, no replicas out of the box, and the project is still pre-1.0 (catalogue: 60,806 stars, first released 2022, MIT). None of that matters for most self-hosted apps — SQLite comfortably serves far more traffic than people assume — but if the app outgrows one machine, the path forward is a migration, not a config change.

Supabase (108,413 stars, 2020, Apache-2.0) stands on full PostgreSQL: real SQL joins, row-level security, connection from any Postgres tool, and the extension ecosystem including pgvector for embeddings. Skills and data both transfer anywhere Postgres runs, which is a bigger long-term asset than any feature checkbox; Postgres is the default answer for a reason.

Same checkboxes, different depth

Both do auth, but Supabase ships a longer list of OAuth providers. Both do realtime; both do file storage. Supabase adds edge functions. PocketBase counters with extensibility of a different kind: use it as a Go framework or attach JavaScript hooks, so custom server logic lives inside the one binary instead of another container. If you want a middle weight between these two, Appwrite is the usual candidate.

Decision table

What I'd do

Default to PocketBase for anything personal or early-stage; you will have a working backend in ten minutes on hardware you already own, and pre-1.0 has been stable in practice for years of real deployments. Reach for Supabase when the requirements say Postgres out loud — relational modelling, row-level security, vectors — and then be honest about one more question: if you aren't attached to self-hosting the whole stack, plain Postgres plus a small auth service, or Supabase's hosted tier, may serve you better than running twelve containers yourself.