Appwrite vs PocketBase (2026)
A side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, licensing, and self-hosting.
Bottom line: Appwrite is a full-featured BaaS for team production applications; PocketBase is a single-binary backend for solo developers and small projects that want zero infrastructure complexity.
Appwrite ships services most platforms treat as add-ons: push/email/SMS messaging, multiple independent databases per project, and Docker Compose infrastructure designed to scale with your application. Consistent SDKs across Flutter, iOS, Android, React Native, and web make it a strong match for multi-platform teams. The trade-off is that running Appwrite means managing a Docker Compose stack of multiple services.
PocketBase occupies a fundamentally different niche. The entire backend — SQLite, auth, realtime, file storage, and a web admin dashboard — ships as one Go binary under 25 MB with no external dependencies. A $5-per-month VPS runs it without configuration. Extension is via embedded Go hooks or lightweight JavaScript through the GOJA engine.
The core constraint on PocketBase is SQLite's write concurrency ceiling: it is not designed for high-write production traffic or horizontal scaling. For a personal tool, an internal dashboard, a prototype API, or a low-volume application, that limitation rarely matters and the operational simplicity is hard to match. For a team application expecting real concurrent write load, Appwrite's architecture is the more appropriate foundation.
Both are MIT or BSD-licensed, free to self-host, and actively maintained. Choose by load profile and operational appetite, not feature lists.
Appwrite
Open-source BaaS with auth, databases, storage, functions, and messaging in a self-hosted package.
Pros
- Broad SDK coverage across mobile, web, and cross-platform frameworks under one consistent API
- Built-in messaging for push, email, and SMS removes a common third-party integration
- Multiple databases and granular permissions per project suit complex multi-tenant applications
Cons
- Managed cloud platform is newer and smaller than Supabase's with fewer global regions
- Full Docker Compose stack is heavier to self-host than a single-binary alternative
PocketBase
Single-file open-source backend — SQLite, auth, realtime, and admin UI packed into one Go binary.
Pros
- Zero external dependencies — one binary is the entire production backend
- Tiny resource footprint runs comfortably on a $5/month VPS or a Raspberry Pi
- MIT license with no usage caps, no telemetry, and no managed-tier required
Cons
- SQLite write concurrency ceiling makes it unsuitable for high-write production workloads
- No managed cloud offering — you own hosting, backups, and all upgrade operations
Appwrite vs PocketBase: spec comparison
| Spec | Appwrite | PocketBase |
|---|---|---|
| License | BSD-3-Clause | MIT |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Starting price | Free / self-host | Free / self-host |
| Pricing model | open-core | open-source |
| Language | TypeScript | Go |
| Platforms | web, ios, android, self-hosted, docker | web, self-hosted, linux, macos, windows |
| Founded | 2019 | 2022 |
| GitHub stars | 44,000 | 40,000 |
FAQ
Appwrite vs PocketBase: which is better?
Neither is universally better. Appwrite (Free / self-host) suits Cross-platform app developers who want a self-hosted BaaS covering databases, auth, storage, functions, and messaging under one consistent API.; PocketBase (Free / self-host) suits Solo developers, indie hackers, and small teams who need a complete self-hosted backend with zero infrastructure complexity.. The spec table above breaks down the differences.
Is Appwrite or PocketBase cheaper?
Both start at the same price (Free / self-host).