PocketBase vs Appwrite

PocketBase and Appwrite are both open-source Firebase alternatives, but they answer the "backend in a box" question with very different boxes. PocketBase puts auth, database, realtime, and file storage into a single Go binary; Appwrite ships a batteries-included platform — those same services plus functions, messaging, and site hosting — as a full Docker stack. The choice comes down to whether you want the smallest backend that works or the widest one you can run yourself.

One binary vs batteries included

PocketBase is one Go executable with an embedded SQLite database and zero external dependencies. Download it, run it, and the admin dashboard is live on port 8090. It's MIT licensed, needs only 512 MB of RAM, and carries the lowest difficulty rating in our catalog — a 1 out of 5. There is nothing else to install because there is nothing else.

Appwrite is built from PHP services on top of MariaDB, installed through an official Docker wizard that brings up the whole platform — database, auth, storage, functions, messaging, and the admin console — as a container fleet. It's BSD-3-Clause licensed, wants 4 GB of RAM, and rates a 3 out of 5: genuinely easy for what it is, but "what it is" is an entire platform.

Database & data model

Both hide the database behind a collections-and-records abstraction, so day-to-day API work feels similar. Underneath, PocketBase's SQLite lives inside the server process — no separate database service, no connection management, and the whole dataset is a file you can copy for a backup. That embedded design is also its ceiling: everything runs on one node, and scaling means a bigger machine.

Appwrite's MariaDB is a separate service in the stack, which cuts both ways. It's more moving parts to operate and back up (dumps plus storage volumes rather than one directory), but it also means the database and the API layer are separable — a more conventional architecture if you expect the deployment to grow past what a single small box can serve.

Feature surface

If your app needs auth, a database, realtime subscriptions, and file storage, the two are at parity — PocketBase covers that core completely, with an admin UI included. Appwrite's pitch is everything around that core: a serverless functions runtime, messaging, and site hosting for full-stack frontends, all behind one console.

PocketBase's answer to extensibility is different in kind: you extend the binary itself with Go or JavaScript hooks rather than deploying functions beside it. That's elegant for a solo developer who is comfortable in code, and limiting for a team that wants platform primitives they can hand out. Neither approach is wrong — but be honest about whether you'll actually use the extra services, because they're the only reason to carry Appwrite's extra weight.

Self-host footprint & operations

This is PocketBase's home turf. A 512 MB VPS runs it; upgrades are replacing one file; backups are copying one directory; monitoring is watching one process. Docker is supported but optional — the official install is literally unzipping a binary.

Appwrite's installer is genuinely one of the smoother Docker experiences in the catalog, but past day one you're operating a multi-container system: MariaDB, the API services, and the functions runtime all live in the stack, and its 4 GB floor means a mid-tier VPS before you create your first project. An eight-fold difference in minimum RAM is the clearest single number in this comparison.

Licensing

Both are permissive — MIT for PocketBase, BSD-3-Clause for Appwrite. No copyleft or network-use obligations either way; license shouldn't drive this decision.

Which should you self-host?

Pick PocketBase if…

• Auth, database, realtime, and storage are all you need — the core is fully covered in one binary.
• You want the cheapest possible hosting: a 512 MB VPS versus a 4 GB one.
• You value one-file upgrades and one-directory backups over platform breadth.

Pick Appwrite if…

• You'll genuinely use the wider platform — serverless functions, messaging, site hosting — not just the core four services.
• You prefer a separated database and a conventional multi-service architecture with room to scale components independently.
• Your team wants a console-first workflow with broad SDK coverage rather than extending a binary in code.

Running either on a VPS

For most people comparing these two, PocketBase is the right default: the overlap in core features is near-total, and it delivers that overlap on an eighth of the RAM with a fraction of the operational surface. Reach for Appwrite when the extras are the point, and size the server accordingly. Step-by-step install guides for PocketBase and Appwrite are linked below — and if you're also weighing the Postgres-native option, see our Supabase vs Appwrite comparison.