Convex vs Firebase
Convex and Firebase overlap on the core BaaS features: database, server-side functions, real-time sync, and file storage. The primary differences are self-hosting, language model, and transaction scope.
| Feature | Convex | Firebase |
|---|
| Self-hosting | Yes (Docker or binary) | No |
| License | FSL-1.1-Apache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| Query language | TypeScript functions | Firestore query API |
| Real-time sync | Yes (reactive) | Yes (Firestore listeners) |
| ACID transactions | Yes (full) | Yes (reads before writes) |
| File storage | Yes | Yes (Firebase Storage) |
Convex is the better choice when TypeScript type safety and self-hosting are requirements. Firestore transactions are ACID and can span any number of documents across collections; the constraint is that read operations must precede writes within a single transaction call. Convex mutations run server-side and are always transactional with no read-write ordering requirement. Firebase is worth considering when your team already uses Google Cloud services, needs Firebase's specific auth providers, or wants a managed service with Google's global CDN and SLA and no infrastructure responsibility.
Convex vs AWS Amplify
AWS Amplify combines managed GraphQL (via AppSync), authentication, file storage, and hosting in a single AWS-native framework. Convex is not tied to a cloud provider and runs self-hosted or on the Convex cloud. Amplify's strengths are deep AWS service integration and GraphQL's typed API; Convex's strengths are TypeScript-native functions, reactive queries, and a simpler self-hosting path. Teams already running significant AWS infrastructure may prefer Amplify's native service integrations; teams building TypeScript-first apps outside the AWS ecosystem will find Convex faster to work with.