Comprehensive comparison of two modern PostgreSQL OSS platforms: Neon OSS serverless architecture vs Supabase OSS full-stack backend. Find the right fit for your AI workloads, development workflows, and scaling needs.
Updated September 2, 2025: This comparison focuses on the open-source projects and their developer workflows. For enterprise teams needing BYOC deployment with the benefits of both platforms, consider exploring dedicated enterprise PostgreSQL solutions.
Quick decision framework for busy developers
How the platforms compare across critical capabilities
Detailed breakdown across all major capabilities
Which platform excels for different application types
| Use Case | Neon OSS | Supabase OSS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI/ML Applications | Excellent - Built for AI agents with instant provisioning | Good - Growing ecosystem, real-time features beneficial | Neon OSS |
| Full-Stack Web Applications | Good - Pure database focus, requires additional services | Excellent - Complete backend with auth, real-time, storage | Supabase OSS |
| Variable/Unpredictable Workloads | Excellent - Scale-to-zero saves costs during inactive periods | Good - Instance-based pricing may be less cost-effective | Neon OSS |
| Development Teams with Heavy Testing | Excellent - Instant database branching for every PR | Good - Git integration but requires migration overhead | Neon OSS |
| Real-Time Applications | Limited - Database focus, needs additional real-time layer | Excellent - Built-in real-time subscriptions | Supabase OSS |
| Rapid Prototyping | Good - Quick database setup but needs additional services | Excellent - Complete backend ready out-of-the-box | Supabase OSS |
How self-hosted costs compare across different scenarios
Key Advantage: Control your infra footprint and optimize for branch-heavy or ephemeral workloads.
Key Advantage: Full-stack services (auth, real-time, storage) are part of the OSS stack you run.
| Scenario | Neon OSS | Supabase OSS | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small App (1 developer) | Low infra footprint with small instances | Low infra footprint with small instances | Similar |
| Development Team (5-10 devs) | Costs scale with branches and storage | Costs scale with services and storage | Similar |
| Production App (Variable Traffic) | Scale-to-zero possible with autosuspend | Always-on costs if you keep services running | Neon OSS |
| Enterprise with Multiple Services | Database-focused; add services as needed | Full-stack services in one OSS platform | Supabase OSS |
| Enterprise BYOC + Instant Cloning | Strong branching and database focus | Broader platform features | Similar |
How both platforms are adapting to the age of AI agents
Both Neon OSS and Supabase OSS are seeing rapid adoption in AI-native workflows. Teams are choosing OSS stacks to keep control of data residency, cost structure, and deployment flexibility while still benefiting from modern Postgres innovation.
Clear answers to help you make the right choice
Neon OSS offers standard PostgreSQL compatibility with minimal modifications, while Supabase OSS uses vanilla PostgreSQL with additional middleware. Both maintain excellent PostgreSQL compatibility, but Neon OSS’s approach minimizes vendor lock-in.
Neon OSS offers instant copy-on-write cloning that's truly instantaneous and cost-effective, similar to Git semantics. Supabase OSS branching requires provisioning new databases and running migrations, which takes more time but integrates well with Git workflows.
Neon OSS is purpose-built for AI workloads with fast provisioning and scale-to-zero capabilities for agentic applications. Supabase OSS is also gaining traction in AI but focuses more on comprehensive full-stack development.
Neon OSS’s scale-to-zero model can be more cost-effective for variable workloads since you only pay for active compute time. Supabase OSS’s instance-based model provides predictable costs but may be less efficient for applications with high variability.
Supabase OSS excels for full-stack applications with its integrated authentication, real-time features, storage, and edge functions. Neon OSS focuses purely on the database layer, so you'd need to integrate additional services for a complete backend.
Yes, since both use PostgreSQL, data migration is straightforward using standard PostgreSQL dump/restore tools. However, if you're using Supabase OSS services (auth, real-time, storage), you'll need to replace those when moving to Neon OSS.
Compliance depends on how you host and secure the OSS stacks. Both can be deployed to meet enterprise requirements with the right controls, auditing, and infrastructure policies.
Supabase OSS offers a broader set of platform features including auth and real-time services, while Neon OSS focuses on database-specific capabilities like branching and scale-to-zero. For teams needing both enterprise features and BYOC deployment, dedicated enterprise PostgreSQL platforms may offer the best of both worlds.
Key questions to guide your platform choice
While Neon OSS and Supabase OSS excel in their respective domains, enterprise teams often need the benefits of both: instant cloning, Git-style workflows, and full control with BYOC deployment.
Compare enterprise PostgreSQL options with instant cloning, BYOC deployment, and organization-wide RBAC.