The economics of Supabase’s open-source Firebase alternative

The structural advantage of PostgreSQL

Supabase grew 1,900% in the last 12 months, reaching 80,000 developers and 100,000 databases. I find that teams leave Firebase when Firestore’s document model forces complex denormalization patterns and unpredictable per-operation costs. While Firebase charges for every document read and write, Supabase charges for compute and storage. I built a SaaS product that cost 58% less per month on Supabase compared to Firebase at scale. This difference stems from the underlying architecture. Firebase uses NoSQL stores like Cloud Firestore, whereas Supabase uses PostgreSQL. Because Supabase uses standard PostgreSQL, you can use any PostgreSQL tool or extension, which provides a level of flexibility that proprietary NoSQL systems like Firebase simply cannot match for complex relational workloads even as your data grows. For apps with complex relational data, such as e-commerce or SaaS platforms, the SQL-native approach avoids the data consistency issues I saw in Firebase during a billing calculation bug. The project grew through a focus on usability and existing open-source tools.

Identity and infrastructure costs

The identity bill alone swings by over $1,000 monthly for a 100,000-user app depending on the selected platform. Supabase provides 50,000 MAUs on its free tier, whereas AWS Amplify’s new Cognito pools only provide 10,000 MAUs before charges begin. I find the Supabase free tier useful for hobbyists, but the platform pauses projects after one week of inactivity. You should calculate your current backend costs before migrating. Supabase uses Row Level Security tied to PostgreSQL roles, while Firebase relies on separate security rules in a JSON-like language. Firebase Cloud Storage charges $0.026 per GB. For growing products, the Pro plan costs $25 per month and includes 100,000 MAUs and 8 GB of disk space. The Team plan provides SOC2, ISO 27001, and SLA-backed support for $599 per month.

Scaling and control

Supabase uses Edge Functions on Deno, while Amplify uses AWS Lambda. I choose Supabase for long-term projects because it avoids the vendor lock-in found in Firebase’s proprietary NoSQL model. You can export your PostgreSQL database and migrate to any compatible service, which prevents the massive rewrite required to leave Google’s ecosystem. If you need massive scale, AWS Amplify inherits the reliability of the broader AWS infrastructure. I saw a billing calculation bug in Firebase caused incorrect charges for users because of denormalized data, a problem PostgreSQL prevents through foreign keys and transactions. In July 2026, Supabase Realtime Broadcast added support for binary payloads, which helps reduce the JSON serialization tax for multiplayer applications. Supabase Realtime works via PostgreSQL’s LISTEN/NOTIFY, while Amplify uses GraphQL subscriptions via AppSync. For file handling, Supabase uses S3-compatible storage with access rules tied to database policies, but Amplify uses Amazon S3. Supabase provides a clean dashboard for all database operations. Will the ease of AWS configuration eventually outweigh the cost savings of Supabase?