Convex logo

8 Best Convex Alternatives (2026)

The closest alternatives to Convex are Appwrite, ElectricSQL, Firebase and InstantDB, with 4 more below. Each shares a comparison category with it, so every rationale here names both tools' real values. Convex is 8th of 11 on Exit cost (4) — usually where a switch starts.

Why do people look for Convex alternatives?

Most people searching for Convex alternatives are not shopping — they already run it and something has stopped fitting. That something is usually a specific number rather than a feeling, so this page starts from the fields where Convex genuinely trails the rosters it appears in, and only then covers the reasons that never show up in a table.

The measured reasons.

  • Exit cost — 4, 8th of 11. Neon + Drizzle records 1.
  • Entry price — $25 /mo, 6th of 9. Firebase records $0 /mo.
  • GitHub stars — 8,000, 6th of 10. Supabase records 90,000.
  • Function timeout — 10 min, 3rd of 4. Firebase records 60 min.
  • Raw SQL — No. Supabase records Yes.

Any one of those is enough on its own if you sized your architecture around it. None of them is enough if you didn't — which is why the list is short and specific rather than a general case against Convex.

The reasons that never make it into a table. A price rise after a funding round. A licence change that turns a self-host into a subscription. A region you now need and they do not have. An acquisition. A support experience that quietly degrades. None of those are fields, and all of them move teams — which is why every entry below links back to Convex alternatives, where the full field set and its sources live. The ones we catch get logged on the Convex timeline.

How the shortlist is ordered. Every tool below shares at least one comparison category with Convex, sorted by how many categories the two overlap in. There is no editorial ranking, no sponsorship and no affiliate link — the order is the overlap count, and the rationale under each is generated from the two tools' own cells, so it names real values rather than adjectives.

1.Appwrite logoAppwrite

Appwrite — Open-source backend platform: databases, auth, storage, functions, self-hostable. It meets Convex in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Auth (built-in against first-party-addon), GitHub stars (52,000 against 8,000) and Exit cost (3 against 4). What you give up: Optimistic writes (No, where Convex records Yes) and Vector search (No, where Convex records Yes). Best for teams that must run the whole backend on their own infrastructure. The most complete self-hostable batteries-included option, with the widest OAuth and SDK coverage here. Held back by a console-first model that keeps your schema out of your repo, and by the weakest transaction story on the page.

Where Appwrite and Convex actually differ
Optimistic writes
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Transactions
noneConvex: occ
Inferred
Auth
built-inConvex: first-party-addon
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Agent fit
3Convex: 5
Inferred
TS inference
PartialConvex: Yes
Inferred
Appwrite profileCompare in Convex alternatives

2.ElectricSQL logoElectricSQL

ElectricSQL — Postgres read-path sync: stream subsets of your own database to clients over HTTP. It meets Convex in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Raw SQL (Yes against No), Exit cost (2 against 4) and Local-first sync (Partial against No). What you give up: Cron & scheduling (No, where Convex records Yes) and MCP server (No, where Convex records Yes). Best for existing Postgres apps that need live read data without a rewrite. The narrowest tool here and the best-behaved: read-path sync over a Postgres you already own, with an exit close to free. It solves a quarter of what Convex solves, and it is honest about which quarter.

Where ElectricSQL and Convex actually differ
Raw SQL
YesConvex: No
Inferred
Cron & scheduling
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
MCP server
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
File storage
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Agent fit
2Convex: 5
Inferred
Exit cost
2Convex: 4
Inferred
ElectricSQL profileCompare in Convex alternatives

3.Firebase logoFirebase

Firebase — Google's app platform: Firestore documents, auth, functions, deep mobile SDKs. It meets Convex in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Entry price ($0 /mo against $25 /mo), Function timeout (60 min against 10 min) and Local-first sync (Partial against No). What you give up: TS inference (No, where Convex records Yes) and Self-hostable (No, where Convex records Yes). Best for consumer mobile apps where offline behaviour is the product. Still the best offline story and the best mobile SDKs, and still the worst exit on this page by a distance. Reasonable for consumer apps that will never migrate; a liability for anything you expect to restructure later.

Where Firebase and Convex actually differ
TS inference
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Self-hostable
NoConvex: Yes
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Entry price
$0 /moConvex: $25 /mo
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Agent fit
2Convex: 5
Inferred
Function timeout
60 minConvex: 10 min
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Firebase profileCompare in Convex alternatives

4.InstantDB logoInstantDB

InstantDB — Client-side reactive database with a relational graph model and instant sync. It meets Convex in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Local-first sync (Yes against No) and Auth (built-in against first-party-addon). What you give up: Cron & scheduling (No, where Convex records Yes) and Full-text search (No, where Convex records Yes). Best for multiplayer or collaborative UIs where every interaction must feel local. The most pleasant developer experience here for collaborative, instant-feeling UIs, and the smallest API surface. The absence of any server-side function runtime is the constraint people hit, usually around the third feature.

Where InstantDB and Convex actually differ
Local-first sync
YesConvex: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Cron & scheduling
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Auth
built-inConvex: first-party-addon
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Self-hostable
PartialConvex: Yes
Community-reported
InstantDB profileCompare in Convex alternatives

5.Neon + Drizzle logoNeon + Drizzle

Neon + Drizzle — The DIY baseline: serverless Postgres, a typed SQL query builder, nothing else. It meets Convex in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Exit cost (1 against 4), Raw SQL (Yes against No) and Transactions (mvcc against occ). What you give up: Reactivity (manual, where Convex records push) and Optimistic writes (No, where Convex records Yes). Best for teams that already know what backend they want to build. Not a competitor — the yardstick. You write the realtime layer, the auth, the file handling and the scheduler yourself, and in exchange nothing you build is owned by anyone else. Every exit-cost score here is measured against this row. Note that we carry Neon + Drizzle as the do-it-yourself baseline in that roster — the "what if we just ran this ourselves" reference point. The honest answer is usually that it is cheaper and considerably more work.

Where Neon + Drizzle and Convex actually differ
Reactivity
manualConvex: push
Inferred
Exit cost
1Convex: 4
Inferred
Raw SQL
YesConvex: No
Inferred
Optimistic writes
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Cron & scheduling
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
File storage
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Neon + Drizzle profileCompare in Convex alternatives

6.Nhost logoNhost

Nhost — Postgres plus Hasura GraphQL, auth, storage and serverless functions. It meets Convex in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Raw SQL (Yes against No), Exit cost (2 against 4) and Auth (built-in against first-party-addon). What you give up: Optimistic writes (No, where Convex records Yes) and Agent fit (3, where Convex records 5). Best for teams already committed to GraphQL and Hasura. An underrated exit: Postgres plus open-source Hasura means both halves of the stack survive leaving. It is also the quietest project here, which you should weigh against how much you like GraphQL.

Where Nhost and Convex actually differ
Raw SQL
YesConvex: No
Inferred
Optimistic writes
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Exit cost
2Convex: 4
Inferred
Auth
built-inConvex: first-party-addon
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Agent fit
3Convex: 5
Inferred
TS inference
PartialConvex: Yes
Inferred
Nhost profileCompare in Convex alternatives

7.PocketBase logoPocketBase

PocketBase — One Go binary: SQLite database, auth, file storage, realtime and an admin UI. It meets Convex in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Raw SQL (Yes against No), Entry price ($0 /mo against $25 /mo) and Auth (built-in against first-party-addon). What you give up: Optimistic writes (No, where Convex records Yes) and MCP server (No, where Convex records Yes). Best for internal tools and side projects where one VPS is plenty. Absurdly good value for single-machine workloads, and the easiest data extraction here — the store is a file you own. The ceiling is real: one writer, one box, and a bus factor of roughly one.

Where PocketBase and Convex actually differ
Raw SQL
YesConvex: No
Inferred
Optimistic writes
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
MCP server
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Egress metered
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Entry price
$0 /moConvex: $25 /mo
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
PocketBase profileCompare in Convex alternatives

8.Zero logoZero

Zero — Sync engine that puts a queryable client cache in front of your own Postgres. It meets Convex in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Local-first sync (Yes against No), Raw SQL (Yes against No) and Entry price ($0 /mo against $25 /mo). What you give up: Cron & scheduling (No, where Convex records Yes) and MCP server (No, where Convex records Yes). Best for teams with an existing Postgres who want a UI that feels local. The most interesting shape on this page: instant local reads without surrendering the database. You still operate zero-cache and Postgres yourself, and you get no auth, storage or cron — this is a layer, not a platform.

Where Zero and Convex actually differ
Local-first sync
YesConvex: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Raw SQL
YesConvex: No
Inferred
Cron & scheduling
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
MCP server
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
File storage
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Egress metered
NoConvex: Yes
Inferred
Zero profileCompare in Convex alternatives

How this list was built

There is no editorial ranking on this page and no sponsorship behind it. The order is mechanical: every tool that shares a comparison category with Convex, sorted by how many categories the two overlap in. A tool that meets Convex in three rosters sits above one that meets it in a single roster, because more overlap means the comparison is more like-for-like.

The rationale under each entry is composed from the two tools' own cells. Where they differ on a field we score, the sentence names both values and the unit. Where they don't differ, it says so instead of manufacturing a distinction — which is why some entries are short.

Values, sources and verification dates all live on the category tables: Convex alternatives. If a figure here disagrees with a vendor's current pricing page, the vendor is right and we are stale.

Still deciding whether to move at all? The Convex profile has the when-to-use and when-not-to-use blocks, and the Convex timeline has the dated changes that usually trigger a migration.