Alternatives span everything from Postgres-first platforms that feel like a full backend in a box, to lightweight self-hosted binaries, to offline-first SDK-style databases that blur the line between state and storage. Some options optimize for production governance and scale, while others shine when you just want to ship a prototype fast and keep costs predictable.
Supabase vs Convex
Supabase stands out as a Postgres-native BaaS that pairs a real relational database with batteries-included primitives like auth, storage, edge functions, and vector search. It’s frequently picked for the “one backend for most things” shape of product work—teams cite being able to get projects running in
record time with OAuth, Edge Functions, Storage, Postgres, queues, and pgvector in one place (see how it helped someone get a project up quickly in
record time).
Where Supabase especially differentiates from Convex is the mindset: SQL, relational modeling, and Postgres portability. In the Neon-vs-Supabase discussion, one developer describes Neon as “standard postgres” and calls out a preference against Supabase’s more opinionated approach, saying their app would be easier to move because it’s
more standard postgres.
- Strong “backend suite” feel: auth + database + storage + functions + extensions (pgvector/queues)
- Practical wins in day-to-day querying—developers moving from NoSQL highlight the query it better experience
- Some teams still keep a separate Node backend and use Edge Functions sparingly, e.g. just for 1 edge function for queueing
Best for
- Teams who want Postgres + SQL as the center of gravity (and prefer to stay close to “standard” database workflows)
- Apps that benefit from Postgres extensions like vectors/queues and a managed platform around them
- Builders who value speed—many say Supabase saved a lot of time
Trade-offs
Firebase vs Convex
Firebase is the “full app platform” alternative: database + auth + serverless functions, plus first-party analytics, crash reporting, performance tooling, hosting/CDN, and push notifications. If your roadmap includes growth instrumentation and production operations as much as it includes CRUD, Firebase’s integrated stack is a major reason teams stick with it.
Firebase’s real-time story is also well-defined—Google even distinguishes “realtime” from “near realtime,” noting that the Realtime Database can be faster than Firestore by a
low hundreds of milliseconds for tight sync use cases.
Best for
- Mobile-first teams that want auth, push, analytics, crash reporting, hosting, and database under one umbrella
- Apps where “near realtime” listeners + offline caching are sufficient, and the wider platform suite is the main value
Trade-offs
- NoSQL modeling can become limiting for certain query patterns; one builder describes how Firebase RTDB made them keep data shallow because deeper fields couldn't be quried properly
- Some teams end up splitting responsibilities across platforms (e.g., continuing Firebase for security while moving primary querying elsewhere, as in a migrate the data to supabase workflow)
Instant vs Convex
Instant is an alternative for teams that want the “reactive by default” feel but prefer a client-centric approach—think of it as bringing backend capabilities (queries, transactions, auth/permissions, storage) closer to where UI state lives, with real-time and offline support built in. Its core appeal is speed of iteration: the mental model is closer to state management than to traditional request/response backends.
Instant is also positioned for modern collaborative UX and local-first behavior, which can be a deciding factor for “vibe coding” projects that start local and later go live. In the BaaS discussion about vibe-coding, developers explicitly prioritize
local-first, fast to deploy, and low-cost workflows.
Best for
- Frontend-heavy teams that want offline-first + realtime without building sync logic themselves
- Prototypes and product experiments where the UI/data loop needs to feel instantaneous
Trade-offs
- The model is less “traditional backend,” which may not match every org’s ops/security expectations
- Teams that want pure SQL + conventional server boundaries may prefer Postgres-first platforms
Xano vs Convex
Xano is the alternative for teams that want a unified backend platform with a strong visual development layer—especially when the goal is production scale without assembling a large stack of separate services. It’s often framed as “everything you need” in one place: unit testing, documentation, security, scalability, API, database, deployment, versioning, debugging—plus the ability to bring your own containers.
What makes Xano compelling compared to Convex is how it caters to bigger operational needs while still promising speed. One enterprise user describes running it for a very large application with “hundreds of tables and endpoints” and
3000 concurrent users, and highlights that you can
start project day 1.
Best for
- Product teams that want visual logic + managed infrastructure to reach production quickly
- Larger apps that need governance, versioning, and standardized backend workflows without building a bespoke platform
Trade-offs
PocketBase vs Convex
PocketBase is the lightweight, self-hosted counterpoint: a single-file Go backend with an embedded database, auth, file storage, realtime subscriptions, and an admin UI. It’s a great fit when you want a backend you can run anywhere with minimal moving parts—especially for MVPs and internal tools.
In the Supabase “one backend” conversation, a developer points to PocketBase as a similar option and shares they built a payment prototype with users, products, and checkout in
2 weeks. That’s the PocketBase sweet spot: fast, portable, and easy to reason about.
Best for
- Indie developers and small teams who want self-hosting and a very low-ops deployment
- MVPs, prototypes, and internal apps where a single-binary backend is a feature, not a limitation
Trade-offs
- It’s intentionally lightweight; teams needing a deep managed ecosystem (multi-region, hosted add-ons, enterprise controls) often end up on platforms like Supabase/Firebase/Xano
- Operational responsibility shifts to you (hosting, backups, scaling strategy), which some teams prefer to outsource
