Supabase Alternatives in 2026: Appwrite, Neon, Firebase and More

The best Supabase alternatives depend on what you need to replace: Appwrite for a complete backend with a self-hosting option, Neon for a Postgres-first move, and Firebase for a mobile app built around live document data. These seven options replace different parts of the stack; keep Supabase if its database, login system and access rules already fit your app.

Verified against the makers' pricing pages and documentation on 14 November 2026. This is a documentation-based comparison, not a hands-on test or a performance ranking.

Supabase alternatives at a glance

Choose the replacement boundary before comparing the bill. A managed database can replace where your tables live; a backend platform also supplies the services your application calls to sign people in, store files and run server-side code.

A CU-hour is Neon's unit of database compute. Its rate is not a complete monthly bill. Likewise, Firebase and Amplify do not sell a single subscription price covering every backend resource. The linked pricing lines in each section are the source for these starting offers.

What each option replaces

The grouped cells below keep the full comparison readable. “Storage” means file or object storage, not database disk. “Self-host” means operating the backend yourself, not merely deploying your frontend elsewhere.

The surprising entry is Neon. Its current product includes auth, object storage and functions, with realtime in beta. Treating it as “only a database, no auth or storage” would misdescribe what you can buy today.

Choose the backend shape first

Keep Postgres when your application's value already lives in SQL. PostgreSQL, usually shortened to Postgres, is the relational database behind Supabase: it stores related records in tables and lets you query across them. If customers, invoices and permissions already work there, preserving that model removes an unnecessary rewrite.

A founder moving an invoice app should therefore evaluate a Postgres-preserving option before a new document database. The important question is whether the destination runs the queries and access rules the business depends on, not whether its dashboard looks simpler.

Replace the whole backend when the integrated services are the problem. If you need a different login system, file API, function runtime and operating model, examine the bundle as a bundle. Appwrite and Nhost deserve attention here; Neon's expanded services also belong in the evaluation.

Change the data model only for a concrete application benefit. Firebase's document sync, Convex's reactive programming model and PocketBase's small self-hosted footprint are reasons to consider a rewrite. Disliking a bill without knowing which resource caused it is not.

If the service names still blur together, the Supabase architecture overview explains which part handles data, identity, files and application logic.

Seven alternatives, with the migration work made explicit

1. Appwrite: the complete-backend shortlist leader

Appwrite replaces the broad Supabase service bundle: authentication, databases, file storage, functions and realtime. It is the first option to assess when you want those services together and want a genuine choice between a managed cloud and your own infrastructure.

For a founder building a client portal, the attraction is straightforward: sign-in, client records, uploaded documents and server-side actions can sit within the same platform. That is a more comparable purchase to Supabase than a database hosting account alone.

Its database story needs care. The current offering uses TablesDB as the default serverless option and lists dedicated choices including PostgreSQL, MySQL and document databases. Do not assume that choosing its PostgreSQL option makes your Supabase client calls, storage permissions or auth integration portable. Database engine compatibility and application API compatibility are separate checks.

Appwrite is open source and supports self-hosting through Docker or Kubernetes. Its self-hosting guide makes the operational responsibility explicit: you manage maintenance and scaling. That option is valuable when control matters, but it is not a promise that running it yourself costs less.

The reason to leave it: you want to work directly in your existing Postgres architecture, and translating the application into Appwrite's service interfaces creates more work than it removes. On the Free cloud plan, hitting resource limits freezes the project; a prototype allowance should not become an unexamined production assumption.

Best for: A founder wanting a broad backend bundle with a self-hosting route.
Standout: The breadth of services across managed and self-operated deployments.
Pricing: Pro from $25/month, per the Appwrite pricing page.
Free trial: A Free cloud plan is available; it is not merely a timed trial.

How to evaluate Appwrite before moving

1. 1

   Choose a representative user journey

   Use a client signing in, reading their own record and uploading a private document. This exercises more of the backend than a public to-do list.

2. 2

   Map each dependency

   List the database query, identity check, storage permission and server-side action used by that journey. Decide which Appwrite service would replace each.

3. 3

   Build an isolated proof

   Use copied non-sensitive records and a test account. Verify that the account can access its own document and cannot access another client's document.

4. 4

   Decide who operates it

   Choose cloud or self-hosting only after assigning responsibility for backups, upgrades and incident response. Then decide whether the migration solves the original problem.

2. Neon: the Postgres-first choice, now with more backend services

Neon is the strongest starting point here when you want to retain Postgres while reconsidering the services around it. Its database branching creates separate database environments, which is useful when a developer needs to try a schema change without treating production as a scratchpad.

Consider a SaaS app whose server already owns its business logic. That app may need a different database host without needing to replace its login provider or file service at the same time. A narrower move can keep the project understandable.

Neon can now cover more than that narrow role. Its backend product update documents Managed Better Auth, functions and S3-compatible object storage; these services can branch alongside the database. Realtime is currently beta. If your product depends on live collaboration, evaluate that status before making it the reason to switch.

The database core is available in the maker's open-source repository. That is different from receiving a ready-made, self-hosted equivalent of the complete hosted backend. Choose Neon for its managed service; do not treat repository availability as an effortless exit plan for every feature.

The reason to leave it: your app depends on a tightly integrated service behavior that still needs adaptation, or you require a mature replacement for a realtime path that is currently beta. Retaining SQL reduces the database rewrite; it does not eliminate service migration.

Best for: Existing Postgres applications and developers who want isolated database environments.
Standout: Branching that now extends beyond tables into associated backend services.
Pricing: Launch is usage-based, with compute at $0.106 per CU-hour and other resource charges; see Neon's pricing page.
Free trial: A Free plan is available.

3. Firebase: pick it for the mobile document workflow

Firebase suits an application whose core experience depends on live data and offline use, particularly on mobile. Its Cloud Firestore database stores documents in collections and supports realtime listeners and offline operation, as described in the Firestore documentation.

Imagine a field-service app where staff update job records while connectivity comes and goes. That is a concrete reason to investigate Firestore's client behavior. It is a less convincing choice for moving an established invoice database merely because both platforms have a login button.

Firebase can replace the major backend roles through Authentication, Firestore, Cloud Storage and Cloud Functions. It is a proprietary managed backend, not a production stack you can move onto your own server. The standard Firestore route also changes how you organize and query data.

There is an important qualification: Firebase now lists SQL Connect backed by Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL. “Firebase has no SQL option” is therefore too broad. Evaluate that as a distinct architecture rather than assuming Firestore document semantics and SQL Connect are interchangeable.

The reason to leave it: the application's relational querying needs outgrow the document model you chose, or you want independent hosting and a simpler relationship between usage and cost. Moving from Supabase into Firestore means translating queries and access rules, not restoring a Postgres dump.

Best for: Mobile and web applications that benefit from Firestore's live and offline document behavior.
Standout: Client-facing document synchronization.
Pricing: Blaze is pay as you go, with no single fixed monthly subscription listed on the Firebase pricing page.
Free trial: Spark is a no-cost plan, but the current matrix requires Blaze for Cloud Storage and Cloud Functions.

For the deeper choice between these architectures, read Supabase versus Firebase.

4. Nhost: keep Postgres, choose GraphQL deliberately

Nhost is the closest fit when you want a Postgres backend whose API is centered on GraphQL, a query language that lets the client request particular fields and related records. Its stack combines Postgres, Hasura's GraphQL API, authentication, storage and serverless functions.

For a customer portal that displays an account, its projects and their latest activity together, that API shape may suit the frontend well. The reason to move is a preference for that application interface, not an assumption that all Postgres platforms behave identically.

Nhost's source repository describes an open-source stack and a Docker Compose self-hosting example. It also documents local development that tracks database migrations and Hasura metadata. That metadata matters: the API's configuration and permissions are part of the application, alongside the database schema.

The reason to leave it: you do not want to maintain the GraphQL and Hasura configuration layer. If your server already exposes the endpoints your product needs, a new API layer can add a new responsibility without solving a customer problem.

Retaining Postgres gives the data a familiar destination. It does not automatically translate Supabase row policies into Nhost's role-based API authorization. Treat those as separate acceptance criteria.

Best for: Teams that explicitly want Postgres plus a GraphQL-first backend.
Standout: Integrated GraphQL subscriptions, identity and file storage around Postgres.
Pricing: Pro from $25/month, with organization-level plans on the Nhost pricing page.
Free trial: Starter is free; inactive projects pause.

5. Convex: choose the reactive programming model

Convex replaces database access and server-side application logic with a reactive backend, where the application works through JavaScript or TypeScript functions. It also offers auth, file storage and scheduled work.

A collaborative planning app is a good candidate: multiple people update shared work, and the UI needs to reflect the changing state. Choose Convex because you want to develop around that behavior, not because you expect to bring an existing SQL application across unchanged.

The database documentation makes a useful distinction: Convex stores JSON-like documents and supports relational modeling. It is not Postgres, but calling it incapable of relationships would also be wrong. You read and write through its function API rather than SQL.

Self-hosting is supported. The backend licensing documentation describes a fair-source license with restrictions on competing hosted services and a future Apache license. That deserves a more precise label than an unqualified “open source” checkbox.

The reason to leave it: SQL compatibility and the surrounding Postgres tools become more valuable than the reactive application model. Self-hosting can change where Convex runs; it does not turn its queries into SQL.

Best for: Developers choosing a reactive backend for a new or deliberately rewritten application.
Standout: Data functions and reactive application behavior in the same programming model.
Pricing: Starter begins at $0/month plus usage on the Convex pricing page.
Free trial: A Free plan is available.

6. PocketBase: small and self-hosted, with a clear production caveat

PocketBase packages a database, authentication, realtime subscriptions, file storage and an admin interface into a small self-hosted backend. Its embedded SQLite database makes it a different proposition from both managed Postgres and a collection of cloud services.

For an internal equipment register or a modest community tool, a single backend executable can be an appealing operating model. You still need someone to deploy it, back it up, monitor it and handle upgrades. “One file” describes packaging, not the disappearance of operations.

The maker's introduction says PocketBase remains under active development, does not yet guarantee full backward compatibility, and is not recommended for production-critical applications unless you accept manual migration work. That warning is more important than a speculative scale comparison.

PocketBase is open source and self-hosted. It replaces several user-facing backend capabilities, but it is not a managed hosting plan or a direct destination for a Supabase Postgres restore. Its SQLite data model and application API require their own migration work.

The reason to leave it: the app becomes critical enough that you need stronger operational guarantees than you are prepared to provide, or the upgrade responsibility no longer fits the project.

Best for: Small applications whose owner deliberately accepts self-hosted maintenance.
Standout: Database, auth, files and realtime in a compact standalone application.
Pricing: The maker lists free software and no paid hosted plan; infrastructure is separate.
Free trial: No hosted trial is needed to use the software.

7. AWS Amplify: best when AWS is already the operating environment

AWS Amplify fits a team that wants its application backend built on AWS services and is willing to manage the associated service boundaries. Its standard data path uses Amazon DynamoDB, with an AWS AppSync API and realtime subscriptions.

For a company already operating in an AWS account, that can be a practical fit: identity uses Amazon Cognito, files use Amazon S3, and custom backend logic can use AWS Lambda. For a solo founder choosing their first backend, those same boundaries are more concepts to understand when something fails.

Amplify's data setup guide shows how TypeScript model definitions create the database and API resources. That is productive scaffolding, but a Supabase migration still has to map its SQL data, permissions and functions into the chosen AWS services.

The JavaScript libraries are open source. The managed AWS services they connect to are not a portable self-hosted backend. Running deployments in your AWS account is ownership of that cloud configuration, not independence from AWS.

The reason to leave it: the application's needs are simple enough that coordinating AWS services creates more operational work than a tighter backend bundle would.

Best for: Teams already equipped to operate applications on AWS.
Standout: A code-defined path into AWS identity, data, storage and functions.
Pricing: Backend usage has no monthly minimum; underlying services are billed as used, per the Amplify pricing page.
Free trial: AWS Free Tier availability depends on service and account eligibility.

For a new evaluation, start with the current Amplify documentation and verify that any tutorial you follow describes the same setup.

Which alternatives to Supabase should you choose?

Choose Appwrite when the full backend bundle is the requirement. It leads this list for that specific job because it combines the service breadth with an explicit self-hosting route. That recommendation flips to Nhost when keeping Postgres and adopting GraphQL matter more.

Choose Neon when preserving Postgres is the first constraint. Start with the database migration, then decide which of its additional services you want. Do not expand a manageable database move into an identity rewrite simply because both services are available from the same vendor.

Choose Firebase or Convex for application behavior worth a rewrite. Firebase's Firestore path suits live documents and offline clients; Convex suits a reactive data-function model. In either case, a working proof of the hardest user journey is more valuable than moving the easiest table.

Choose PocketBase for deliberate simplicity, or Amplify for an existing AWS commitment. Neither is a universal fallback. PocketBase shifts responsibility to the operator; Amplify spreads it across AWS services.

If vector search needs extend beyond pgvector, assess Pinecone as a separate retrieval layer, not a replacement for the Supabase backend.

When staying on Supabase is the right answer

Stay when your SQL model, login flow and row-level security already fit the product, and the proposed replacement would reproduce them without a meaningful benefit. Row-level security, or RLS, is the database rule system that can make each customer see only their own records.

A functioning customer portal does not become better because its records move to a different dashboard. A worthwhile migration should solve something you can name: a needed client behavior, an operating requirement, a service limitation or a documented cost problem.

Supabase pricing

First identify whether the concern comes from the plan, compute, files, traffic or another resource. The Supabase pricing breakdown is the place for the full buying discussion. Compare the services your app will still need after the move, including the ones a database-only migration would leave behind.

Supabase storage pricing

If uploaded files are the concern, changing the database engine may leave the actual problem untouched. Audit what you store and how users download it before choosing an entire new backend. Treat any storage-only change as its own project, with file access rules and application URLs included in the scope.

What moves off Supabase, and what needs rebuilding?

Postgres data is the portable part; a functioning application includes much more than the rows. Supabase documents logical backup and restore of roles, schema and data, then treats storage objects and Edge Functions as separate migration work in its backup and restore guide.

For another Postgres destination, that makes the database a reasonable place to start. Check supported extensions, versions and application-specific dependencies before assuming a restore is sufficient. For Firestore, Convex or SQLite, expect a data transformation and query rewrite instead.

Auth needs an identity plan. Supabase's self-hosted restore guide says user records can be included in a database dump, while JWT secrets, provider settings and redirect URLs need separate configuration. In its documented move to a new self-hosted instance, existing tokens become invalid and users must sign in again.

That guide concerns Supabase-to-Supabase restoration. It does not promise that a different vendor can import every account or preserve every session. For a cross-vendor move, establish how accounts, identity identifiers and sign-in methods map before scheduling the cutover.

RLS can be exported, but its meaning depends on the surrounding identity system. The policies are Postgres objects, not inherently unportable code. However, Supabase's RLS documentation includes helpers such as auth.uid() and auth.jwt(). Your destination must supply the appropriate identity context or you must adapt the policies. A successful SQL import is not proof that customer isolation still works.

Edge Functions need runtime and integration checks. Supabase describes them as portable TypeScript functions on a Deno-compatible runtime in its Edge Functions guide. The migration work is in deployment, secrets, gateway authentication and calls back into Supabase services. Moving to an incompatible runtime can require code changes too.

Before moving production, prove the complete journey in isolation: sign in, read permitted records, reject forbidden access, upload and retrieve a private file, and execute the business action that matters. Keep a rollback path until those behaviors work on the destination.

How these were picked

The comparison uses the seven candidates in the brief and primary product pages checked on 14 November 2026. The selection criteria are replacement scope, database continuity, identity and file support, realtime behavior, hosting control, starting paid offer and migration responsibility.

No signed-in trials, throughput tests or latency benchmarks were performed. The recommendations are architectural judgments based on the documented capabilities. The important distinction is whether an option solves your requirement with less total application work, not how many feature labels its homepage carries.

Generic hosting vendors are not additional backend alternatives here: renting a server does not by itself replace auth, file permissions or application APIs. A database service is included when it provides a useful migration destination, with the remaining service work made explicit.

The ones to avoid

Avoid PocketBase for a production-critical migration you cannot maintain. Its maker's warning is a selection criterion, not a footnote to explain away.

Avoid Amplify if nobody will own the AWS service configuration. The generated starting point does not remove the need to understand the resources behind it.

Avoid Firebase's Firestore path or Convex solely to relocate existing SQL. Both offer reasons to choose their programming models; neither makes a SQL rewrite disappear.

Avoid treating Neon's expanded backend as guaranteed Supabase compatibility. Verify each service you will replace, especially if beta realtime is essential to the app.

And avoid switching a functioning Supabase application just to chase a free allowance. First prove the replacement solves a problem that outweighs migration and ongoing operation.

Frequently asked questions

Is Supabase good or bad?

Supabase is a good fit when you want Postgres with integrated auth, files and server-side functions. It is a poor fit when your application or operating requirements demand a different model. Existing SQL and access policies are reasons to evaluate staying before switching.

What are some good alternatives to MongoDB?

That is a different comparison from replacing Supabase. If the goal is document-oriented application data, examine Firestore or Convex; if the goal is moving to relational SQL, examine a Postgres option. Neither choice implies automatic compatibility with an existing MongoDB application.

Can you use Supabase for free?

Yes. The current Supabase plan page includes a Free tier with resource allowances. Whether it fits your application depends on the services and usage you need; free access is not unlimited production capacity.

Are Supabase and Firebase the same thing?

No. Both cover common backend needs, but Supabase centers on Postgres. Firebase's Firestore path uses documents and client synchronization, while its SQL Connect offering is a separate PostgreSQL-backed route. Compare the specific architecture you intend to use.

Is there a better option than Supabase?

There is a better fit for a particular requirement: Appwrite for a broad self-hostable bundle, Neon for a Postgres-first move, Nhost for GraphQL, Firebase for Firestore's mobile workflow, or Convex for reactive data functions. Without a concrete requirement, staying is often the better decision.

Why is Firebase Studio shutting down?

Google documents a Firebase Studio sunset on March 22, 2027 and directs existing workspace users toward Google AI Studio or Google Antigravity. Its Studio notice does not establish a broader business motive, and explicitly says core Firebase products and already deployed apps are unaffected.

What is replacing Google Firebase?

There is no single replacement for the Firebase backend in the notice above. The migration destinations named there concern the Firebase Studio development environment. Choose an alternative backend only if its database, hosting or application model better fits your needs.

What are the downsides of using Firebase?

On the Firestore path, an existing SQL application needs a different data and query model. Production services remain tied to Google's managed infrastructure, and usage-based billing needs resource-level attention. Spark also does not include every service needed for a complete backend.

What is happening to Firebase?

Firebase Studio is being retired, while Google says the core Firebase backend products are unaffected. Do not confuse the workspace product's lifecycle with the availability of Firestore, Authentication or the other backend services.

Use the AI business workflow audit checklist to map the workflow your backend must support before committing to a migration.