Supabase
Full review89/100
Top Pick
Best for You want Postgres with batteries included.
Not ideal for You need a document database or heavy NoSQL.
Databases
Supabase vs PlanetScale
Head-to-head with the fewertools Best Score formula (70% category fit + 30% Stack Score). Independent. No paid placements.
Supabase 89 · PlanetScale 60 · Supabase leads by 29
vs
PlanetScale
Full review60/100
Solid
Best for MySQL with git-like branching.
Not ideal for Small projects (it is enterprise-priced).
My honest take
My honest take: Supabase for most founders, full stop. 89 vs 60 is a 29-point gap, and gaps that wide usually mean the loser has fundamental issues (pricing, ownership risk, or a missing capability) that show up later. PlanetScale can still be the right call in narrow situations (mysql with git-like branching), but if you're picking a primary tool, default to Supabase and don't second-guess.
Clinton Feyisitan · founder, fewertools
Winner by category
Different jobs, different winners.
Best for price
Supabase
Best for solo founders
Supabase
Best for bigger teams
PlanetScale
Best overall score
Supabase
Best if budget is zero
Supabase
The long answer
Why Supabase wins.
Supabase is postgres + auth + storage + realtime. PlanetScale is mysql with git-like branching. Both target databases workflows, and the question we get most often is which one to commit to. Here is the honest answer based on our scoring across functionality, pricing value, ease of use, reliability, and founder fit.
Supabase wins clearly. 89 vs 60: a 29-point gap on Best Score. Across the five criteria we weight (functionality, pricing value, ease of use, reliability, founder fit), Supabase leads on most. PlanetScale is still defensible if you fit one of the specific use cases below, but for a generalist founder it is the harder sell.
Where the gap shows up specifically: Pricing value: Supabase (9/10) better value for what you pay than PlanetScale (4/10). Founder fit: Supabase (9/10) a better fit for solo and small-team founders than PlanetScale (4/10). These are the differences that actually change a buying decision once you have used both for a real project.
On the ownership side, Supabase is founder-led (lower stack risk). We weight ownership in Stack Score because it predicts pricing trajectory and continuity risk over 2-3 year horizons. Founder-led usually means slower price creep and more product continuity; PE-owned usually means the opposite.
Side-by-side
How they compare on every factor we score.
Best Score is the headline number (70% category fit + 30% Stack Score). The five criteria below feed Category Fit. Stack Score reflects editorial verdict, ownership stability, and pricing trajectory.
| Supabase | PlanetScale | Winner | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best Score | 89/100 | 60/100 | Supabase |
| Category Fit | 87/100 | 69/100 | Supabase |
| Stack Score | 95/100 | 39/100 | Supabase |
| Verdict | Our Pick | Replace | N/A |
| Pricing model | Freemium | Paid | N/A |
| Ownership | Founder | Unknown | N/A |
| Category | Databases | Databases | N/A |
| Functionality | 9/10 | 9/10 | Tie |
| Pricing value | 9/10 | 4/10 | Supabase |
| Ease of use | 8/10 | 8/10 | Tie |
| Reliability | 8/10 | 8/10 | Tie |
| Founder fit | 9/10 | 4/10 | Supabase |
When each tool wins
Pick by situation, not by score alone.
Pick Supabase if...
- you want Postgres with batteries included
- you need better value for what you pay
- you need a better fit for solo and small-team founders
- small projects (it is enterprise-priced)
Pick PlanetScale if...
- mySQL with git-like branching
- you need a document database or heavy nosql
FAQ
Supabase vs PlanetScale: the common questions.
Which is better for solo founders?
Supabase scores higher on founder fit (9/10 vs 4/10), meaning it is better tuned to small-team and solo workflows: lighter setup, fewer enterprise-only features locked behind upgrades, more sensible pricing tiers for one-person use.
Which is cheaper at the founder tier?
Supabase pricing model: Freemium. PlanetScale pricing model: Paid. Supabase has a true free tier where PlanetScale does not, so the entry cost favours Supabase.
Is the ownership situation a risk for either tool?
Supabase is founder-led: usually slower price creep and more product continuity over a 2-3 year horizon. PlanetScale has standard ownership signals.
What's the migration cost if I'm already on the other one?
Migration cost depends on how deep you've integrated this category into your stack. For a project that uses Supabase or PlanetScale as the primary surface (not just a small embedded feature), expect a half-day to a weekend of migration work plus a week of running both in parallel. Both tools support data export. Run a fresh audit on your current stack before deciding the switch is worth it: audit my stack with both options.
How is this scoring decided?
Best Score is 70% Category Fit (graded on functionality, pricing value, ease of use, reliability, founder fit, scored 0-10 each) plus 30% Stack Score (editorial verdict + ownership stability + pricing trajectory). Same formula on every tool, no paid placements. Read the full methodology.
Score anatomy
Why Supabase scored 89, and PlanetScale scored 60.
Best Score isn't pulled out of the air. Here's what lifted each tool and what pulled it down, criterion by criterion.
Supabase · 89/100
Strong because
- functionality (9/10)
- pricing value (9/10)
- ease of use (8/10)
- reliability (8/10)
- founder fit (9/10)
PlanetScale · 60/100
Strong because
- functionality (9/10)
- ease of use (8/10)
- reliability (8/10)
Lost points because
- pricing value (4/10)
- founder fit (4/10)
- editorial verdict: replace
Real-world scenarios
Which one wins in your specific situation.
- You're a solo founder shipping your first product: Supabase is the cleaner choice. Less setup, fewer enterprise-only features locked behind upgrades, pricing that makes sense for one seat.
- You already use Supabase and it's working: don't migrate. The score gap (29 points) doesn't justify the disruption. Migration costs are real · half a day to a weekend of work plus a week running both in parallel.
- You have no budget and need it to work today: Supabase has a real free tier, PlanetScale does not. Start with Supabase, upgrade later if needed.
Stack fit
How each fits inside a founder stack.
A tool you can't integrate is a tool you'll replace in six months. Here's how each plays with the rest.
Supabase
Supabase fits cleanly in a stack with Vercel, Stripe, Resend, Clerk. If your stack already includes most of those, Supabase integrates without friction.
PlanetScale
PlanetScale fits the same kind of stack. If your existing stack leans toward Vercel or Stripe or Resend, PlanetScale doesn't create integration debt either.
Final recommendation
For most founders, Supabase. The gap is wide enough that the loss-of-points reasons matter more than the win-points reasons. Default to Supabase unless you fit a specific edge case. If you're already on PlanetScale and it's working, don't migrate. The cost of switching is real and the gain is small.
Bottom line
Supabase for most founders.
Supabase wins clearly. 89 vs 60: a 29-point gap on Best Score. You want Postgres with batteries included. PlanetScale is still a defensible choice if mysql with git-like branching, but for most founders Supabase is the safer pick.
Not sure either is right for your stack?
Paste the tools you already use. fewertools audits the whole stack: where there's overlap, where the weak links are, and which of these two (if either) actually belongs in your build.