PocketBase vs Nhost
Both are alternatives to Firebase. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Nhost vs PocketBase — same comparison, one verdict.
PocketBase and Nhost are closely matched on ownership (95 vs 88) — this one comes down to pricing and to which trade-offs below you can live with.
PocketBase
The entire backend is one file you can copy to a server.
PocketBase is a single Go binary containing an embedded SQLite database, authentication, file storage, realtime subscriptions and an admin UI. There is no Docker, no cluster, no dependency list — you download one executable, run it, and you have a backend. For a side project, an internal tool or an MVP it is the least ceremony available anywhere, and the fact that your entire production database is a file you can copy is a real feature rather than a limitation. MIT, about 60.4k stars. The honest constraint is SQLite: superb up to a point, and that point is a single machine.
Nhost
Postgres plus instant GraphQL, for teams that think in queries.
Nhost pairs Postgres with Hasura to give you a GraphQL API generated straight from your schema, alongside authentication, storage and serverless functions. If your front end is React or Vue and your team already prefers GraphQL to REST, this is the shortest path from a database table to a typed query in the client. MIT, self-hostable, with a hosted tier. It is the smallest project here at around 9.3k stars, which is the caveat — the technology is sound and the ecosystem is thin.
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.
| PocketBase | Nhost | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 95 | 88 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Pricing | Free and open source. You pay for a server, and a very small one will do. | Free tier available; hosted plans from about $25/month. Self-hostable at no licence cost. |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 512 MB | — |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $6/mo — the cheapest genuine backend on this list | — |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 10 minutes | — |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Very low. Replace the binary to upgrade. | — |
PocketBase edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.
PocketBase
Strengths
- +One binary, no dependencies — the simplest deployment in this comparison
- +Your whole database is a file you can copy, back up and version
- +Extremely fast for read-heavy workloads on modest hardware
- +MIT, no enterprise edition, no upsell path
Trade-offs
- −SQLite means one machine — no horizontal scaling story
- −Smaller feature surface than Firebase or Supabase
- −Effectively a single-maintainer project, which is a real risk to weigh
- −Not the right choice for an app expecting millions of concurrent users
Nhost
Strengths
- +Instant GraphQL from your Postgres schema via Hasura
- +Real Postgres underneath, so the data stays portable
- +MIT licensed with a genuine self-host path
- +Strong typed-client story for React and Vue front ends
Trade-offs
- −Much smaller community than Supabase or Appwrite
- −GraphQL-first is a commitment, not a neutral default
- −Self-hosting means running Hasura and Postgres, not one binary
- −Fewer SDKs, and mobile support lags the others
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose PocketBase
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and one binary, no dependencies — the simplest deployment in this comparison.
Choose Nhost
if instant GraphQL from your Postgres schema via Hasura.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — sQLite means one machine — no horizontal scaling story, and much smaller community than Supabase or Appwrite. 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.
PocketBase vs Nhost — common questions
Is PocketBase a better fit than Nhost for backend as a service?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: PocketBase scores 95 to Nhost's 88 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Nhost earns its place on a different axis — instant GraphQL from your Postgres schema via Hasura. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
PocketBase keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Nhost 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 PocketBase or Nhost?
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 PocketBase and Nhost both alternatives to Firebase?
Yes — both appear in our Firebase comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Firebase and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-31. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.