Baserow vs Teable

Baserow and Teable make the same opening pitch: an Airtable-style grid on top of a real PostgreSQL database, with an API, automations and a self-hosted Docker install. They differ in what the free edition leaves out, what each one wants from the server, and which direction the project is heading. Baserow is an MIT-licensed open-core product with a built-in application builder. Teable is AGPL-licensed and is steering toward AI workflows and app building. Decide which of those you actually need before you compare screenshots.

Licences and what the free edition keeps

Baserow is open core. Its README says everything that is not premium or enterprise code is under the MIT licence, which allows commercial and private use. The premium and enterprise directories are licensed separately and need a paid subscription for production use. In practice Baserow's free edition gives you grid, form and gallery views; kanban, calendar and timeline views and row comments are premium features. Self-hosted use has no row, storage or API request caps.

Teable describes its repository as the Community Edition, "free for self-hosting under the AGPL-3.0 license", with the packages under packages/ under MIT. Its licence file adds a brand-protection term: the Teable name, logo and visual identity may not be modified, replaced or removed. The official image ships the complete product, and paid plans unlock AI features and advanced enterprise capabilities in place with a licence key, no image swap. Teable's README lists grid, form, kanban, gallery and calendar views, comments, record history and real-time collaboration among what you get.

So the trade is not subtle. Baserow's licence is the more permissive one, but more of the Airtable interface sits behind its paywall. Teable's licence is copyleft with a branding clause, but its free edition holds more views.

Beyond the grid

Baserow's README lists an application builder for portals published on your own domain, automations and dashboards, all in the MIT core, plus an AI assistant. That makes it a plausible place to build a small internal tool, not only to store rows.

Teable's README says self-hosting can deploy four things in one: the database platform, an AI workflow engine, an app deployment platform and an agent sandbox. It also spells out the catch. Those AI and App Builder features belong to the full-featured self-host, which has its own deployment repository and a runtime plane. The standalone Docker install, the one we used, covers tables, collaboration, API and automation, and does not include AI chat or the App Builder. If those matter, plan for the heavier route.

Footprint and setup

Both are rated 2 out of 5. Baserow's quickest path is one docker run of an all-in-one image that bundles the app, PostgreSQL, Redis and Caddy. Teable's standalone path is a small Docker Compose file with the app, PostgreSQL and Redis as separate services and an environment file of generated secrets.

Baserow's DigitalOcean guide asks for 2 GB per app container, which matches our 2 GB minimum; Teable's README gives no RAM figure, so our 4 GB is an estimate. Measured, the gap is smaller than the estimates suggest. Baserow used about 1.2 GB idle on our GCP test box and Teable about 1.9 GB. Both are comfortable on a 4 GB server and tight on 2 GB.

Which to choose

Choose Baserow if licence freedom matters (you might build a product on it), if you want an application builder and automations in the free edition, or if you want the lighter footprint. Accept that kanban and calendar views need a paid plan.

Choose Teable if kanban, gallery and calendar views, comments and real-time collaboration should be free, and an AGPL licence with a branding clause is fine. It is also the one to pick if you expect to grow into its AI and app-building features, knowing those need the heavier deployment and a paid plan.

Not the only two options

NocoDB is the third name in this space; see our NocoDB vs Baserow comparison. To set either one up, follow the Baserow deploy guide, or read how the field stacks up as an Airtable alternative.