Appwrite vs PocketBase
Two backend platform options for database. When each fits, what it costs, who moves from one to the other, and what makers who chose it say.
Which fits you
Choose Appwrite if- A Firebase-style backend — database, auth, storage, functions and messaging — that is open source and can be self-hosted.
Use it whenYou want a Firebase-like SDK experience but need the option to run it on your own servers.
Trade-offIts own document-style database API rather than plain SQL; self-hosting runs many containers.
Choose PocketBase if- A whole backend — database, auth, files, realtime and admin UI — in one self-hosted executable.
Use it whenYour app is small to medium, you're happy on one server, and you want a backend running in minutes with no monthly bill.
Trade-offSQLite on a single server, so it scales up, not out; still pre-1.0, so upgrades can include breaking changes.
At a glance
| Appwrite | PocketBase | |
|---|---|---|
| Used by | 8 makers' products · 1 open-source projects | 6 makers' products · 11 open-source projects |
| Downloads | 53.6k/wk−28% vs npm | 206.4k/wk+160% vs npm |
| Pricing | Free to self-host; Appwrite Cloud has a free plan and paid per-project plans with usage limits. | Free (open source); you host it yourself. |
| Free tier | Yes | Yes |
| Open source | Yes · self-hostable | Yes · self-hostable |
What makers say
Makers on using it for database, from Product Hunt and Starter Story interviews, each linked to the source. Products with a page of their own and fuller notes first.
On AppwriteImagine is powered by Appwrite Cloud as its core infrastructure layer. We use Appwrite’s databases, auth, storage, messaging, and realtime services to generate production-ready applications, and Appwrite Sites to handle hosting and global distribution for every app Imagine creates.
Rubium has it's back-end fully powered by Appwrite Cloud, we always trusted the team and their awesome services thanks to the great documentation, ease of use and security compliance.
We used Appwrite to handle all the heavy backend stuff - user accounts, database, storage. It saved us time and headaches, so we could focus on building the actual product.
On PocketBaseI drew endless inspiration from the PocketBase project: the best documentation, excellent code execution and, of course, the best support in GH discussions.
Pocketbase has been great for getting off the ground with an open-source authentication system and database UI. It is surprisingly efficient, and with liteFS we have been able to continue using it without any performance issues.
Super-fast and super-simple infrastructure as a service, for database management, user handlings and small micro-services.
Loved and watch-outs
Themes that recur in makers' words and Hacker News comments, each linked to what it summarises.
AppwriteOn Product Hunt: 4.7★, 31 reviews · mentioned most: all-in-one platform, authentication, backend as a servicePocketBaseOn Product Hunt: 5.0★, 6 reviews · mentioned most: self-hosting capability, authentication system, lightweightWho uses each
Imagine
Emma IntelligenceWhat makers pair each with
With AppwriteNot enough makers' products to say yet.
With PocketBaseNeither quite right?
See the whole database decision →
SupabaseBackend platformPostgres plus auth, storage and realtime in one project.vs Appwrite →vs PocketBase →
ConvexBackend platformRealtime, collaborative apps written entirely in TypeScript.
Firebase
NeonManaged databaseServerless Postgres that scales to zero, with a branch per preview deploy.
PlanetScaleManaged databaseApps that expect heavy scale and want zero-downtime schema changes.
TursoManaged databaseSQLite at the edge, or one database per customer.
MongoDBManaged databaseDocument-shaped data and teams already fluent in Mongo.
PostgreSQLRun it yourselfThe engine behind most of the hosted options above, run on your own server or container for full control and a flat cost.