Learn how PocketBase and Supabase differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these backend-as-a-service (baas) tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Supabase appears to have several advantages over PocketBase, particularly in popularity, growth and maturity. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Supabase leads in popularity with 110,700 stars vs 61,137 stars for PocketBase. The 81% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Supabase has 14,565 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Supabase is growing faster, adding 2,346 stars in the last 30 days (+2.2%) against adding 345 stars for PocketBase (+0.6%). Supabase is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with PocketBase last updated 3 days ago and Supabase 3 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Typescript, SCSS. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: PocketBase uses Golang while Supabase leverages CSS, Bash, JSX, Python, Next.js, Rust, C, Objective-C, Vue, Swift, Kotlin, SvelteKit, Elixir, Tanstack Start, Dart.
Supabase has been in development longer, starting 7 years ago, compared to PocketBase which began 4 years ago. This 2.8-year head start suggests Supabase may have more mature features and established processes.
PocketBase uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Supabase's Apache-2.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Backend-as-a-Service (BaaS).
Both PocketBase and Supabase offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.