Supabase vs Nhost
Both are alternatives to Firebase. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Nhost vs Supabase — same comparison, one verdict.
Supabase and Nhost are closely matched on ownership (91 vs 88) — this one comes down to pricing and to which trade-offs below you can live with.
Supabase
TOP PICKPostgres with Firebase's ergonomics — and you can take the database with you.
Supabase wraps a real Postgres database in the things that made Firebase pleasant: instant REST and GraphQL APIs, row-level security, authentication, file storage, realtime subscriptions and edge functions. The difference that matters is underneath. Your data is in Postgres, so you get SQL, joins, transactions, extensions like PostGIS and pgvector, and the ability to pick up the database and run it on any host on earth. It is Apache-2.0 and self-hostable with Docker Compose, and the hosted tier exists for people who would rather not. Around 107k GitHub stars and pushed to daily.
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.
| Supabase | Nhost | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 91 | 88 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Pricing | Free tier for small projects; hosted Pro from about $25/month. Fully self-hostable at no licence cost. | 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. | 8 GB | — |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $30–60/mo self-hosted, against $25+/mo on their cloud — the saving is real but smaller than most self-hosting moves | — |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | Half a day | — |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | High for a self-hosted stack. You own Postgres upgrades, JWT secret rotation and the coordination of eight components that release independently. | — |
Supabase is Macrostack's recommended Firebase alternative, so it's our pick here.
Supabase
Strengths
- +Real Postgres — SQL, joins, transactions and the whole extension ecosystem
- +Genuinely portable: the database runs anywhere, hosted or not
- +Apache-2.0 with a complete self-host path, not a crippled community edition
- +pgvector built in, so AI features do not need a second database
Trade-offs
- −You now have a Postgres database to think about — indexes, connections, vacuum
- −Mobile offline sync is weaker than Firebase's SDKs
- −Self-hosting the full stack is more moving parts than the hosted product suggests
- −Younger than Firebase; some edges are still being filed off
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 Supabase
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and real Postgres — SQL, joins, transactions and the whole extension ecosystem.
Choose Nhost
if instant GraphQL from your Postgres schema via Hasura.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — you now have a Postgres database to think about — indexes, connections, vacuum, 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.
Supabase vs Nhost — common questions
Is Supabase a better fit than Nhost for backend as a service?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Supabase scores 91 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?
Supabase 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 Supabase 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 Supabase 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.