Zero logo

8 Best Zero Alternatives (2026)

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

Why do people look for Zero alternatives?

Most people searching for Zero 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 Zero genuinely trails the rosters it appears in, and only then covers the reasons that never show up in a table.

The measured reasons.

  • Auth — bring-your-own, 8th of 11. Supabase records built-in.
  • MCP server — No. Convex records Yes.
  • File storage — No. Convex records Yes.
  • Egress metered — No. Convex records Yes.
  • GitHub stars — 3,000, the weakest of the 10 here. Supabase records 90,000.

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 Zero.

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 Zero timeline.

How the shortlist is ordered. Every tool below shares at least one comparison category with Zero, 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 Zero in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Cron & scheduling (Yes against No), Auth (built-in against bring-your-own) and MCP server (Yes against No). What you give up: Transactions (none, where Zero records mvcc) and Local-first sync (No, where Zero 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 Zero actually differ
Transactions
noneZero: mvcc
Inferred
Local-first sync
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Raw SQL
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Optimistic writes
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Cron & scheduling
YesZero: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Auth
built-inZero: bring-your-own
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Appwrite profileCompare in Convex alternatives

2.Convex logoConvex

Convex — Reactive TypeScript backend: database, functions and live queries in one project. It meets Zero in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Cron & scheduling (Yes against No), MCP server (Yes against No) and File storage (Yes against No). What you give up: Local-first sync (No, where Zero records Yes) and Raw SQL (No, where Zero records Yes). Best for small teams shipping realtime-shaped product fast. The fastest path from empty repo to working realtime feature, and the clearest thinking about transactions on this page. It is also a 4 on exit cost with no SQL escape hatch — a bet worth making deliberately rather than by default.

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

3.ElectricSQL logoElectricSQL

ElectricSQL — Postgres read-path sync: stream subsets of your own database to clients over HTTP. It meets Zero in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Egress metered (Partial against No), Exit cost (2 against 3) and GitHub stars (8,000 against 3,000). What you give up: TS inference (Partial, where Zero records Yes) and Local-first sync (Partial, where Zero 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 Zero actually differ
Egress metered
PartialZero: No
Inferred
TS inference
PartialZero: Yes
Inferred
Local-first sync
PartialZero: Yes
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Optimistic writes
PartialZero: Yes
Inferred
Exit cost
2Zero: 3
Inferred
Agent fit
2Zero: 3
Inferred
ElectricSQL profileCompare in Convex alternatives

4.Firebase logoFirebase

Firebase — Google's app platform: Firestore documents, auth, functions, deep mobile SDKs. It meets Zero in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Cron & scheduling (Yes against No), Auth (built-in against bring-your-own) and MCP server (Yes against No). What you give up: TS inference (No, where Zero records Yes) and Self-hostable (No, where Zero 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 Zero actually differ
TS inference
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Self-hostable
NoZero: Yes
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Raw SQL
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Cron & scheduling
YesZero: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Auth
built-inZero: bring-your-own
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
MCP server
YesZero: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Firebase profileCompare in Convex alternatives

5.InstantDB logoInstantDB

InstantDB — Client-side reactive database with a relational graph model and instant sync. It meets Zero in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Auth (built-in against bring-your-own), MCP server (Yes against No) and File storage (Yes against No). What you give up: Raw SQL (No, where Zero records Yes) and Entry price ($30 /mo, where Zero records $0 /mo). 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 Zero actually differ
Raw SQL
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Entry price
$30 /moZero: $0 /mo
Inferredsource
Auth
built-inZero: bring-your-own
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
MCP server
YesZero: No
Inferred
File storage
YesZero: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
InstantDB profileCompare in Convex alternatives

6.Neon + Drizzle logoNeon + Drizzle

Neon + Drizzle — The DIY baseline: serverless Postgres, a typed SQL query builder, nothing else. It meets Zero in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on MCP server (Yes against No), Exit cost (1 against 3) and Egress metered (Partial against No). What you give up: Reactivity (manual, where Zero records push) and Local-first sync (No, where Zero 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 Zero actually differ
Reactivity
manualZero: push
Inferred
Local-first sync
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Optimistic writes
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
MCP server
YesZero: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Exit cost
1Zero: 3
Inferred
Entry price
$19 /moZero: $0 /mo
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Neon + Drizzle profileCompare in Convex alternatives

7.Nhost logoNhost

Nhost — Postgres plus Hasura GraphQL, auth, storage and serverless functions. It meets Zero in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Cron & scheduling (Yes against No), Auth (built-in against bring-your-own) and MCP server (Yes against No). What you give up: Local-first sync (No, where Zero records Yes) and Optimistic writes (No, where Zero records Yes). 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 Zero actually differ
Local-first sync
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Optimistic writes
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Cron & scheduling
YesZero: No
Inferred
Auth
built-inZero: bring-your-own
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
MCP server
YesZero: No
Inferred
File storage
YesZero: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Nhost profileCompare in Convex alternatives

8.PocketBase logoPocketBase

PocketBase — One Go binary: SQLite database, auth, file storage, realtime and an admin UI. It meets Zero in Convex alternatives. It is ahead on Auth (built-in against bring-your-own), File storage (Yes against No) and Cron & scheduling (Partial against No). What you give up: Local-first sync (No, where Zero records Yes) and Optimistic writes (No, where Zero 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 Zero actually differ
Local-first sync
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Optimistic writes
NoZero: Yes
Inferred
Auth
built-inZero: bring-your-own
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
File storage
YesZero: No
Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-20source
Cron & scheduling
PartialZero: No
Inferred
Backing
solo-maintainerZero: venture-backed
Community-reported
PocketBase 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 Zero, sorted by how many categories the two overlap in. A tool that meets Zero 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 Zero profile has the when-to-use and when-not-to-use blocks, and the Zero timeline has the dated changes that usually trigger a migration.