| Metric | PostgreSQL | Supabase | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | 49 | 49 | Tie |
| Accessibility | 88 | 86 | PostgreSQL |
| Best Practices | 94 | 88 | PostgreSQL |
| SEO | 88 | 100 | Supabase |
| Security | 70 | 62 | PostgreSQL |
| TTFB | 904ms | 650ms | Supabase |
| Composite | 78 | 76 | PostgreSQL |
PostgreSQL outperforms Supabase in 4 of 7 categories, with a stronger composite score (78 vs 76). Supabase leads in SEO, TTFB.
Choose PostgreSQL when your primary concern is security and best practices. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Choose Supabase when your primary concern is server response time and SEO. Its audit data shows consistent strength in these areas across the sampled sites.
Scores are medians across 4 audited PostgreSQL sites and 2 audited Supabase sites in the BeaverCheck database. Every audit runs the same 100+ checks — Lighthouse performance, security headers, accessibility, SEO, server response time — against a real URL. No vendor input, no sponsorship, no affiliate links. Read the full methodology →
Small sample: one or both technologies have fewer than 10 audited sites. Treat these numbers as directional — medians stabilize around 20–30 audits per side.
Send Feedback