Nhost vs. Supabase

Supabase can be used for strong custom backends for games and full-stack web applications. Self-hosting is not as great of an option just yet, and Supabase is still being developed actively so there are still legitimate problems that can be encountered, but this project seems to be going in a positive direction and has been useful for us.

Incentivized

• Getting up and running quickly and cheaply
• Edge functions
• Flexibility with login options
• Data GUI
• Settings GUI

Incentivized

• The policies preventing turning off a server are nonsense
• On a lower pricing tier, reaching a usage limit can prevent setting modification to go back under that usage limit
• It's still in beta, so use in production can be problematic at times

Incentivized

It still takes some ability to be able to use all the features, but you may not need to use all the features. Even though a lot of Supabase is straightforward, you will still want experienced backend developers working with this tech. I wouldn't recommend having frontend specialists deal with this much.

Incentivized

The extent of the options offered by Supabase far exceeded other similar products we've tried in the past. Also, their documentation has been excellent for us. Self-hosting is not what it's cracked up to be, but that's usually the case with these kinds of tools, anyway. I don't know anyone else I've talked to about Supabase who self-hosts, either. For something super micro small, Pocketbase is genuinely self-hostable, but it's been best for prototypes and proofs-of-concept, perhaps not with something expecting a lot of users. That's where Supabase's scalability and flexibility become more valuable.

Incentivized

• Gave us a scalable system to reduce a client's backend costs by over 75%
• Allowed us to get a custom backend up for an internal plugin in half the time we originally expected

Incentivized