PocketBase vs Supabase: which one to choose in 2026?
Both are open source alternatives to Firebase. We compare license, tech stack and features to help you decide which fits your team best.
| PocketBase | Supabase | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Dev Tools | Dev Tools |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| GitHub stars | 40k | 78k |
| Tech stack | Go, SQLite | PostgreSQL, PostgREST, Deno, Elixir |
| Replaces | Firebase | Firebase |
Supabase has more GitHub stars, which usually indicates a larger community (not necessarily that it's the best option for your use case).
PocketBase
Backend-as-a-service in a single binary, a minimal alternative to Firebase.
Pros
- The simplest deployment in the whole backend-as-a-service category
Things to consider
- SQLite limits horizontal scalability at high volume
Supabase
Backend-as-a-service on PostgreSQL, an alternative to Firebase.
Pros
- Easier migration thanks to standard SQL
Things to consider
- The full self-hosted stack has quite a few services to maintain
Key features
PocketBase
- Auth, storage and database in one binary
- Realtime API over WebSockets
- Admin panel included
Supabase
- Full PostgreSQL database (not a subset)
- Auth with OAuth, magic links and RLS
- File storage with CDN
- Realtime subscriptions and Edge Functions