NocoDB vs Teable

NocoDB and Teable are both TypeScript Airtable alternatives built on NestJS, and both put a spreadsheet-style grid, kanban, gallery, form and calendar views over PostgreSQL. Both are rated 2 out of 5 to deploy. The differences that matter are the licence, whether the app can sit on top of a database you already have, and what each one holds back from its free edition.

Licences

NocoDB changed licence in January 2026. Its docs say the project moved from AGPL-3.0 to the Sustainable Use License, a source-available fair-code licence that NocoDB itself describes as not OSI-approved. You may use and modify it for your own internal business purposes or for non-commercial or personal use. Offering NocoDB as a hosted service, or giving external customers direct access to it, needs a commercial licence.

Teable calls its repository the Community Edition and puts the core applications under AGPL-3.0, with the packages under packages/ under MIT. That is an OSI-approved licence, but copyleft: modified versions you run for users over a network must offer their source. Teable adds a brand-protection term, so the Teable name, logo and visual identity must stay as they are. Teable's README adds that paid plans unlock AI features and advanced enterprise capabilities in the same image, activated by a licence key.

For a team running either one internally, both are fine. The licence only bites if you want to resell access, and there NocoDB's licence is the stricter of the two.

Where the data lives

NocoDB can put its interface on a PostgreSQL or MySQL database that already exists. Upstream advises against letting it edit the schema of a connected source, but lookups, rollups, formulas, views and webhooks work on top. If the job is a spreadsheet front end for a database another application writes to, this is NocoDB's strongest card.

Teable is built around its own PostgreSQL database: its README describes "spreadsheet-simple on the surface, real PostgreSQL underneath". It also lists SQL query among its features, so you can reach the data directly, but it is not presented as a tool for wrapping an arbitrary existing schema.

What the free edition leaves out

NocoDB's Community edition keeps grid, gallery, form, calendar, kanban and map views, webhooks and the REST API, but leaves out single sign-on, two-factor authentication, audit logs, realtime collaboration and more than one workspace. Its workflow engine is limited to two workflows per base.

Teable's README lists real-time collaboration, comments, record history, undo/redo, import and export and automations in the open build. Its AI chat and App Builder are the paid or heavier part, and need the full-featured deployment rather than the standalone Docker install.

Footprint and setup

NocoDB's installer is a script that asks for a domain and writes a Compose stack of the app, a worker, PostgreSQL, Redis and Traefik with Let's Encrypt. Upstream's published minimum is 2 GB of RAM and 2 vCPU, with 8 GB recommended for production. Teable's standalone path is a Compose file with the app, PostgreSQL and Redis and a generated environment file; we use 4 GB as an estimate, since the README gives no figure. Measured idle on our GCP test box, NocoDB used about 1.6 GB and Teable about 1.9 GB.

Which to choose

Choose NocoDB if you want a spreadsheet interface over an existing PostgreSQL or MySQL database, or the lighter footprint, and an internal-use licence is fine.

Choose Teable if you want an OSI-approved copyleft licence, real-time collaboration and record history in the free edition, and a database that Teable itself owns. Neither choice is wrong for a small team; the question is whether you are wrapping an existing database or starting fresh.

Not the only two options

Both are Airtable alternatives; see how the whole field compares on our Airtable alternatives page. Baserow is the third contender: NocoDB vs Baserow and Baserow vs Teable cover the other two pairings. For the install itself, follow the NocoDB deploy guide.