Xano vs. Supabase: A Side-by-Side Comparison

Trying to decide what backend tool is right for you? If you’re going back and forth between Xano and Supabase, you’ve come to the right place. Read on to find out how the tools compare with respect to use cases and features like scalability, performance, security, pricing, and more.

So at the very beginning, what we were facing is that we had two options. The first one was Supabase, and the second one was Xano. Since we like to move fast and not rely too much on policies or complicated setups, and we’re not backend experts, we felt Xano was just straight to business. I can simply create an endpoint, run the logic in a function, output it, and plug it into the frontend. — Sofiane M'Barki, CTO of Private Villas Mexico

What use cases are right for Xano vs. Supabase?

For all the reasons we’re going to dive deep into later in this article, the bottom line is going to come down to this: You pick Xano when you need to build a complete backend, not just a database layer, and when you want to ship quickly without managing infrastructure. 

Here are a few other use case considerations to keep in mind.

With that high-level use case conversation covered, let’s dive more into a feature-by-feature comparison of Xano vs. Supabase.

How does scope compare in Xano vs. Supabase?

Xano and Supabase were built with different objectives in mind. Supabase is, effectively, a superpowered database (we see what they did there with the name!). It gives you a managed Postgres instance that includes built-in authentication, storage, and real-time APIs. Developers can also use any Postgres extension and integrate with frameworks like Next.js, Remix, or Flutter. No small thing! But if you want more — like logic orchestration, monitoring, or advanced scaling — you have to bring in some external tools (or write it yourself in edge functions or third-party systems, which have limitations and can sometimes impact performance).

Xano is a complete backend platform, not just a database. So in addition to a Postgres instance that includes built-in authentication, storage, and real-time APIs, it also brings together all the other elements you need to build a full backend to support an application: like business logic and orchestration, file storage, caching, and monitoring. (Learn more about Xano’s architecture here.)

Xano was my first choice due to its robust logic capabilities combined with a scalable database architecture. — Tom Wesołowski, partner of Playmore (read the Playmore case study)

How do logic and orchestration compare in Xano vs. Supabase?

You can create basic backend logic in Supabase, which is provided via database functions, triggers, and serverless edge functions. But when it comes to coordinating multi-step logic across APIs, data models, and external systems, you need a foundational understanding of SQL or TypeScript — and you also need to maintain multiple environments and manage dependencies manually. Supabase is about lightweight, event-driven execution, as opposed to full workflow orchestration.

Xano was designed with business logic orchestration as a first-class concept. Every API endpoint in Xano can contain a sequence of steps (conditionals and loops, database queries, external API calls, AI operations), and they’re all executed within a unified runtime. This means that you can define, visualize, and scale logic without additional infrastructure — and what you build is reusable, easy to test, and version-controlled. So there are no limitations to building even the most complex logic, and it will still be transparent, maintainable, and performant. Plus, whatever you’re designing can be built and validated both visually and in code.

Getting all of this to work together smoothly was tricky because there were lots of special cases to consider. Xano proved it could handle these complicated rules while staying fast and reliable. — Tom Wesołowski, partner of Playmore (read the Playmore case study)

How do scalability and performance compare in Xano vs. Supabase?

Xano was specifically built for scale and performance, which it does via an integrated backend architecture that manages state and orchestration: structured APIs, Redis caching for low-latency performance, auto-scaling for cloud deployments. We know that our builders are often startups that plan to grow into enterprise-grade systems, or teams managing multiple frontends under a single backend, and we want to make sure that Xano works just as well for them on day one as it will years from now.

Supabase emphasizes elasticity and simplicity, using a serverless function model similar to AWS Lambda. Each edge or serverless function is stateless; in other words, it doesn’t maintain session or in-memory context between calls. Developers have to roll their own solutions for state management, such as Redis or external databases (which Supabase doesn’t natively include). It definitely works for lightweight workloads, but it will fall short when it comes to long-term scalability, especially in the case of complex systems.

I really appreciate the fact that Xano is built on best practices. Xano is on a secure cloud infrastructure in the Google Cloud, and it utilizes Docker Containerization, Kubernetes, and a PostgreSQL database. All of which means that Xano enables us to scale…not just prototype. — Dipen Patel, partner at Unico Connect (read the Unico Connect case study)

How do security and governance compare in Xano vs. Supabase?

As with scalability and performance, Xano focuses on making sure that your backend will be ready for enterprise-grade scenarios. That’s why we bake in environment separation, branching for dev/staging/production, secrets management, consistent request/response patterns, and authorizations and role management. Because every app built in Xano follows the same structure, it’s easy to ensure consistency and reduce errors. Plus, we’ve invested heavily in making sure we check all the compliance boxes: like ISO, SOC2, HIPAA, and GDPR. (Check out our Trust Center for more details.)

Supabase’s security model relies on PostgreSQL’s Row Level Security (RLS). It’s flexible, but it’s also complex and prone to performance degradation. Even Supabase’s own documentation warns that RLS can can cause performance issues (and major kudos to them for calling it out). Generally, it’s a poor fit for teams without deep SQL expertise.

Handling sensitive recruitment data meant security was a top priority. Xano’s GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance, encrypted storage, and role-based access controls eliminated the need for additional security infrastructure setup or maintenance. — Daniel Levis, co-founder and CEO of Soraia (read the Soraia case study)

How does the ecosystem and extensibility compare in Xano vs. Supabase?

Supabase is all about open source. Developers can self-host, use any Postgres extension, and integrate with frameworks like Next.js, Remix, or Flutter. It’s ideal for teams that want to customize everything, own every layer of their stack, and fine-tune infrastructure by hand.



Xano takes a no-assembly-required approach. You can connect to any external service through APIs, SDKs, or webhooks, and integrate with your favorite developer tools directly from your IDE. And it does it while keeping your core backend unified and production-ready. Database, auth, scaling, monitoring, and governance are already built in and deeply integrated, so you spend your time extending capabilities, not stitching systems together.

Now we’re just writing logic, not syntax. Xano helps us to build the backend really quickly. — Dipen Patel, partner at Unico Connect (read the Unico Connect case study)

How does developer experience compare in Xano vs. Supabase?

Xano was built to make it possible to build your backend visually while still adhering to real engineering principles. You don’t need to be super technical to build in Xano, and we did that intentionally. At the same time, if you are super technical (we love y’all too!), you can also write backend logic directly in your IDE — in code — using familiar tools and workflows. In either case, everything you build is transparent, editable, and version-controlled.



If you want to build with Supabase, you would benefit from a strong technical background. It provides direct database access and SQL-driven configuration, which is great for backend engineers, but will cause stumbling for teams that lack deep database expertise. 

There are certainly non-technical vibe coders out there using a tool like Lovable with a Supabase backend, and it might seem like they can get pretty far — but almost all of these examples are prototype, MVP-type products: not products with a backend that could stand the test of being put in production or scaling for actual users.

If you’re already playing around with Supabase with Lovable or another AI coder, here are some questions to ask yourself:

• Do you understand what’s happening inside your backend?
• Can you explain how your backend works and how all of the pieces of data and logic fit together?
• If something breaks, could you fix it without the use of AI?

We think the answer to these questions should be definitively “Yes,” regardless of your technical ability.

The biggest advantage I have is that Xano gives this visual presence of what’s happening on the backend. — Christopher Kennedy, CEO of Astrafuse (read the Astrafuse case study)

How do AI-assisted development and agent-building capabilities compare in Xano vs. Supabase?

Supabase offers AI-assisted development tools based on the MCP standard, and its MCP server lets AI tools like Cursor, Claude, and others directly connect to your Supabase projects. This allows you to create and manage Supabase projects, tables, and schemas through natural-language prompts. You can also plug any MCP-compatible client into Supabase’s backend. 

What Supabase lacks is an ability to validate AI’s work visually — which is where Xano shines. Its platform supports visual builders and workflows for AI assistance (the Logic Assistant) where you can describe what you need in natural language and the system suggests or builds logic, endpoints, and data structures. 

Xano has also been designed for strong agent-building capabilities, making MCP and agent capabilities first-class components of its platform. In addition to the Xano MCP Server, you also get the MCP Builder for visually defining tools, endpoints, and logic workflows, which you can then expose via MCP to AI agents. Plus, there’s full support for agent-ready backends, and you can connect your Xano backend to any MCP-compatible client or tool.

Supabase’s focus remains on database/edge-function workflows rather than full agent orchestration. It doesn’t have a fully visual agent-builder with memory/triggers/orchestration out of the box, so you need to build the agent logic, memory management, and orchestration layers yourself.

How does pricing compare in Xano vs. Supabase?

Supabase follows a freemium model: a generous free tier, then usage-based pricing. It’s great for prototypes, but costs can spike quickly with traffic, storage, or active users—scaling can bring unexpected bills, especially when moving to the $599 “Team” plan for enterprise features. Plus, you still need a developer to really see success.



Xano also offers a freemium version, but it uses a per-instance pricing model that aligns with infrastructure rather than usage. So you pay for environments, not for queries, triggers, or row updates. This makes scaling predictable and budgeting straightforward. 

For teams running production workloads or multiple apps, Xano’s model delivers the consistency that usage-based systems often lack—and anyone, not just a developer, can realize that advantage.

You can hire a developer to write code — or you can simply use Xano to do what you want to do. Using Xano will be a lot cheaper, and if you ever want to make a change, you'll be able to do it yourself. So why not try that first? — Chris Duncan, owner of LEADstrike (read the LEADstrike case study)

TL;DR

Supabase is a good choice for users who have a very technical background, with use cases that won’t need to scale or meet enterprise-grade requirements. That’s probably why it’s so popular with frontend devs building side projects and POCs. Xano is a good choice for teams with a mixed backgrounds (both technical and nontechnical) and use cases where they may eventually need to scale or satisfy enterprise-grade needs.

Need something between the long-form content and the TL;DR summary? Here’s a handy table summarizing Xano vs. Supabase.

Tried both? Got feelings about it? Whatever your opinion, we want to hear it. Reach out in the Xano Community!