Baserow vs NocoDB
Both are alternatives to Airtable. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as NocoDB vs Baserow — same comparison, one verdict.
Baserow is open source (MIT (core); premium/enterprise modules under separate commercial licenses) and NocoDB is not (Sustainable Use License v1.0 (source-available, fair-code; not OSI-approved) — changed from AGPL-3.0 in Jan 2026) — so the real question is whether you want to own the no-code databases stack or rent it.
Baserow
TOP PICKMIT-core, self-hostable no-code database with the closest Airtable-style experience.
Baserow is an open-source no-code database and app builder that feels close to Airtable: grid, kanban, calendar, timeline, form, and gallery views over linked tables, plus a visual app/dashboard composer and built-in automations. Its core platform is MIT-licensed and self-hostable via Docker, and when you host it yourself there are no row or API caps. It follows an open-core model — some advanced features live in separate premium and enterprise tiers under their own commercial licenses — but the MIT core is fully sufficient for most self-hosting teams.
NocoDB
Turns an existing SQL database into a smart no-code interface; now source-available, not OSI open-source.
NocoDB puts an Airtable-style no-code interface (grid, kanban, gallery, calendar, forms) on top of a database you already run — MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and more — which gives it excellent data ownership, since your records stay in your own standard SQL database. It is free to self-host via Docker for internal use. Important licensing note: as of January 2026 NocoDB moved from AGPL-3.0 to the Sustainable Use License (SUL), a source-available "fair-code" license — many secondary sites still list the old AGPL label. Self-hosting for your own internal or personal use remains free; offering NocoDB itself as a hosted or managed service to others requires a commercial license.
Side by side
10 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| Baserow | NocoDB | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 93 | 78 |
| Open source | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT (core); premium/enterprise modules under separate commercial licenses | Sustainable Use License v1.0 (source-available, fair-code; not OSI-approved) — changed from AGPL-3.0 in Jan 2026 |
| Pricing | Free to self-host (MIT core); paid cloud and self-hosted premium/enterprise tiers available | Free to self-host for internal/personal use; commercial license required to offer it as a managed service; paid cloud available |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 4 GB. Baserow staff advise starting at 4 GB, and say a basic setup grows to about 3 GB | 8 GB. That is the vendor's production specification, with 4 vCPU and 50 GB+ disk; its 2 GB minimum is for trying it out |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $12–24/mo for a 5-user instance on a 4 GB VPS. The all-in-one image already includes PostgreSQL, Redis and the Caddy proxy, so nothing else is required | $24–48/mo on an 8 GB VPS. The installer runs PostgreSQL, Redis and Traefik on the same box, so nothing else is required |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 30 minutes with the all-in-one image, an afternoon with a domain, backups and an external database | 20 minutes with the install script and a domain ready; longer if you bring your own database |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | A release every few weeks to pull, a nightly backup of the /baserow/data volume (Baserow advises running backup and restore while nobody is using the server), and the occasional major PostgreSQL jump on the embedded database. The 11 to 15 move needed a separate upgrade image. | About two releases a month; run the bundled update.sh deliberately against a pinned tag. The vendor's minimum backup is a daily pg_dump plus a tarball of attachments, because everything lives in Docker volumes. |
Baserow is Macrostack's recommended Airtable alternative, so it's our pick here.
Weighing both against staying on Airtable? Is Airtable free? What it actually costs →
Baserow
Strengths
- +MIT-licensed core is OSI-approved and genuinely open
- +Self-hosted via Docker; your data and workflows stay on your own infrastructure
- +Closest Airtable-style experience here (grid, kanban, calendar, form views, linked tables, app builder)
- +No row, collaborator, or API limits when you self-host the core
- +Very active project with frequent releases and a growing plugin ecosystem
Trade-offs
- −Open-core: some advanced field types and enterprise features sit behind separate commercial licenses, not MIT
- −Self-hosting requires running and maintaining PostgreSQL, Redis, and the app containers
- −You are responsible for backups, updates, and SSL yourself
- −Smaller template and integration library than Airtable's
NocoDB
Strengths
- +Sits on top of your own MySQL/PostgreSQL/SQLite database, so your data stays in a standard SQL store you control
- +Free to self-host for internal and personal use, with full source access
- +Familiar no-code views (grid, kanban, gallery, calendar, forms) plus an automatic REST API
- +Extremely active project with a very large community and frequent releases
Trade-offs
- −License is source-available (Sustainable Use License), not OSI-approved open-source, and restricts offering NocoDB itself as a paid/managed service
- −The Jan 2026 relicense from AGPL-3.0 means older "AGPL" references you may find are out of date
- −Self-hosting means running and maintaining the app and its backing database
- −As an interface layer, it depends on a separate SQL database you provision and manage
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Baserow
if you want the source and the option to fork it, and mIT-licensed core is OSI-approved and genuinely open.
Choose NocoDB
if sits on top of your own MySQL/PostgreSQL/SQLite database, so your data stays in a standard SQL store you control.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — open-core: some advanced field types and enterprise features sit behind separate commercial licenses, not MIT, and license is source-available (Sustainable Use License), not OSI-approved open-source, and restricts offering NocoDB itself as a paid/managed service. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
What it takes to run these yourself
Real requirements and honest running costs, not the vendor quickstart.
Self-hosting Baserow
4 GB. Baserow staff advise starting at 4 GB, and say a basic setup grows to about 3 GB RAM · 30 minutes with the all-in-one image, an afternoon with a domain, backups and an external database
$12–24/mo for a 5-user instance on a 4 GB VPS. The all-in-one image already includes PostgreSQL, Redis and the Caddy proxy, so nothing else is required
Self-hosting NocoDB
8 GB. That is the vendor's production specification, with 4 vCPU and 50 GB+ disk; its 2 GB minimum is for trying it out RAM · 20 minutes with the install script and a domain ready; longer if you bring your own database
$24–48/mo on an 8 GB VPS. The installer runs PostgreSQL, Redis and Traefik on the same box, so nothing else is required
Baserow vs NocoDB — common questions
Is Baserow a better fit than NocoDB for no-code databases?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Baserow scores 93 to NocoDB's 78 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. NocoDB earns its place on a different axis — sits on top of your own MySQL/PostgreSQL/SQLite database, so your data stays in a standard SQL store you control. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Baserow keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. NocoDB is still self-hostable, so the files stay on your server either way — but it is not local-first by design, so check what its export produces before you rely on it.
Can I self-host Baserow or NocoDB?
Both can be self-hosted. The difference is what it costs you in time rather than whether it is possible — see the setup and maintenance rows above.
Are Baserow and NocoDB both alternatives to Airtable?
Yes — both appear in our Airtable comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Airtable and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
More Airtable head-to-heads
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-18. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.