Baserow vs NocoDB 2026: Features, Pricing, and Self-Hosting

TL;DR

Choose Baserow when you want an Airtable-like database that owns its data model, offers a straightforward all-in-one Docker image, and keeps its open-source edition under the permissive MIT license. Choose NocoDB when connecting PostgreSQL or MySQL as an external data source is central to the project, or when NocoDB's wider set of views and developer tooling better fits your workflow.

That recommendation is conditional, not absolute. NocoDB Cloud limits external database connections to higher plans, while Baserow gates several views and granular permissions behind paid plans. The licensing difference also matters: Baserow is open-core with its open-source edition under MIT; NocoDB Community uses the Fair Code Sustainable Use License, which permits internal self-hosting but restricts offering NocoDB as a managed service to third parties.

Baserow vs NocoDB at a Glance

	Baserow	NocoDB
Core model	Native no-code database and application platform	Native no-code database plus external PostgreSQL/MySQL connections
Community license	Open-source edition under MIT; premium and enterprise directories have separate licenses	Fair Code Sustainable Use License
Cloud free tier	3,000 rows and 2 GB storage per workspace	1,000 records, 1 GB storage, 3 editors, and 10 commenters
First paid cloud tier	Premium: $10/user/month annually or $12 monthly	Plus: $12/seat/month annually or $15 monthly
External SQL sources	Not the product's defining workflow	PostgreSQL and MySQL; Cloud availability is plan-dependent
Database API	Auto-generated REST API documentation and database tokens	REST data and metadata APIs with API tokens
Self-hosting	Official all-in-one Docker image; external services supported	Official Docker Compose quickstart with app, worker, PostgreSQL, and Redis
Best fit	Teams starting a collaborative database from scratch	Teams that value external SQL connectivity or NocoDB's workflow surface

Pricing and plan features in this table were checked against the vendors' official pages on August 13, 2026. They can change, so confirm the Baserow pricing page and NocoDB pricing page before purchasing.

The Main Difference: Native Tables vs External SQL Connectivity

Baserow is designed first as a database-building environment. A team creates databases, tables, fields, and views inside Baserow, then uses those records in Baserow's application, automation, and dashboard tools. Its open-source stack uses Django, Vue, and PostgreSQL, and its official repository describes Baserow as API-first and self-hostable.

NocoDB can also create and manage tables, so it is no longer accurate to describe it only as a visual wrapper around an existing database. Its clearest architectural differentiator is the ability to connect external PostgreSQL and MySQL data sources. NocoDB's external data-source documentation recommends PostgreSQL 14 or later and MySQL 5.7 or later; Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle are listed as Enterprise add-ons.

There is an important plan caveat. NocoDB's current Cloud pricing puts external database connections on Business and higher plans, not Free or Plus. Business includes up to 10 external database connections. If external connectivity is the reason you are choosing NocoDB Cloud, price that tier rather than comparing only the entry plans.

Choose by where the data should live

• Choose Baserow if the team wants to create a new operational database in a product built around its own tables and views.
• Choose NocoDB if an existing PostgreSQL or MySQL source must remain part of the operating model and your selected deployment and plan support that connection.
• Test both if you are starting from scratch. Interface preferences, required views, permissions, and automation limits may matter more than external database support.

Licensing: MIT Open Source vs Fair Code

The old shorthand “both are open-source under familiar OSI licenses” is no longer correct.

The Baserow repository license places the Baserow Open Source Edition under the MIT Expat license. Baserow is open-core: code in its premium and enterprise directories is governed by separate licenses. This distinction matters if you need to redistribute or modify more than the community edition.

The NocoDB repository license uses the Sustainable Use License for the main product branches. NocoDB's self-hosting documentation calls Community “fair-code” and says internal self-hosting is allowed, including building applications for your own organization. Offering NocoDB as a hosted or managed service to third parties may require a commercial license.

If a permissive OSI-approved license is a hard procurement requirement, Baserow's open-source edition is the clearer fit. If NocoDB's features are a better match, review the exact Sustainable Use terms with your legal or procurement team rather than treating it as AGPL.

Views, Collaboration, and Permissions

Both products provide the spreadsheet-database basics: tables, rich field types, filters, sorting, formulas, linked records, forms, and multiple saved views. The useful comparison is which features are present on the plan you will actually use.

Baserow

Baserow's views overview lists Grid, Gallery, Form, Kanban, Calendar, and Timeline views. On the current Cloud Free plan, Grid, Gallery, and Form are included. Kanban, Calendar, Timeline, row comments, and other collaboration features begin on Premium. Advanced adds role-based and field-level permissions, audit logs, and larger hosted limits.

This makes Baserow Free suitable for straightforward data entry and public-form workflows, but a team should budget for Premium or Advanced when richer visualization or granular access control is part of the requirement.

NocoDB

NocoDB documents Grid, Form, Gallery, Kanban, Calendar, List, Map, Timeline, and Gantt views. Availability differs by deployment and plan; for example, the Map view documentation says Map is available on all Cloud plans and all self-hosted deployments, while advanced access-control capabilities are distributed across paid tiers.

NocoDB's pricing page currently puts table-level permissions on self-hosted Business and row-level security on Scale. Its product documentation describes controls at workspace, base, table, field, and record levels, but that broad capability list should not be read as a promise that every control is included in Community or every Cloud plan.

Practical permissions test

Before committing to either product, build a small permission matrix: who can see each table, field, and record; who can edit; and whether public or restricted views are required. Then verify each cell against the exact hosted or self-hosted plan. “Role-based access” is too broad a checkbox for a meaningful comparison.

REST APIs and Integrations

Both tools expose REST APIs, but their documentation and plan boundaries differ.

Baserow automatically generates API documentation for each database. Database tokens can be scoped by table and operation—create, read, update, and delete—and the docs update when the schema changes. Baserow Cloud documents a limit of 10 concurrent API requests; self-hosted instances have no built-in rate limit. See Baserow's database API documentation for the current endpoint and token model.

NocoDB exposes REST data APIs and metadata APIs, authenticated with API tokens. Some metadata APIs are reserved for specific Cloud and licensed self-hosted tiers. NocoDB's REST API overview is the current source for its v2/v3 API surfaces and plan notes.

Older comparisons often list GraphQL as a standard NocoDB differentiator. NocoDB's current developer documentation centers on REST data and metadata APIs, so this guide does not treat GraphQL as a generally available decision point. If GraphQL is mandatory, verify support in the exact release and plan before choosing either tool.

Self-Hosting Baserow and NocoDB

Both vendors support self-hosting, but the current official deployment paths are more similar than the old “single lightweight NocoDB container versus heavy Baserow stack” framing suggests.

Baserow self-hosting

Baserow publishes an all-in-one image that runs the product locally with a persistent volume:

docker run -d \
  --name baserow \
  -e BASEROW_PUBLIC_URL=http://localhost \
  -v baserow_data:/baserow/data \
  -p 80:80 \
  -p 443:443 \
  baserow/baserow:2.3.3

The official Docker installation guide also documents external PostgreSQL, Redis, and object storage for more scalable deployments. Pin a tested release rather than copying latest into production.

NocoDB self-hosting

NocoDB's current official quickstart generates a Docker Compose stack containing the NocoDB app, a worker, PostgreSQL, and Redis:

curl -fsSL https://install.nocodb.com/noco.sh | bash -s -- --quick

The NocoDB self-hosting guide lists 2 vCPU, 2 GB RAM, and 10 GB disk as minimums, with 4 vCPU, 8 GB RAM, and 50 GB or more recommended for production. Its single-server installer can use bundled or external PostgreSQL and Redis and adds Traefik for HTTPS. The previous claim that a production NocoDB deployment needs only 512 MB and one container is not a sound current planning assumption.

For either product, account for backups, TLS, upgrades, attachment storage, monitoring, and database maintenance. “Free self-hosted” means no Community software fee; it does not mean zero infrastructure or operating cost, and paid features may still require a license.

Current Cloud Pricing

Baserow Cloud

• Free: 3,000 rows and 2 GB storage per workspace; unlimited databases; Grid, Form, and Gallery views.
• Premium: $10 per user/month billed annually or $12 monthly; 50,000 rows, 20 GB storage, additional views, comments, and exports.
• Advanced: $18 per user/month billed annually or $22 monthly; 250,000 rows, 100 GB storage, granular permissions, SSO, and audit logs.

NocoDB Cloud

• Free: 3 editor seats, 10 commenter seats, 1,000 records, 1 GB storage, 100 automation runs, and 1,000 API calls per month.
• Plus: $12 per seat/month billed annually or $15 monthly; 50,000 records, 20 GB storage, 10,000 automation runs, and 100,000 API calls per month. External database connections are not included.
• Business: $24 per seat/month billed annually or $30 monthly; 300,000 records, 100 GB storage, 50,000 automation runs, 1 million API calls per month, and up to 10 external database connections.

These are public list prices and limits, not a full total-cost model. Compare the required tier, billable-user rules, infrastructure cost, support, and operational ownership. Do not base the decision on outdated claims that Baserow costs $5, NocoDB Team costs $9, or that both hosted free tiers include several thousand rows.

Which Should You Choose?

Choose Baserow when

• You are creating a new collaborative database rather than exposing an existing SQL source.
• The MIT-licensed open-source edition fits your licensing requirements.
• You want an official all-in-one Docker path for a small deployment.
• Baserow's application builder, automations, dashboards, or table experience suit the workflow.
• The required views and permissions are available on the Baserow plan you intend to buy.

Choose NocoDB when

• PostgreSQL or MySQL external data-source connectivity is central and available on your chosen deployment or plan.
• NocoDB's view types, workflows, extensions, or REST API surface better match the team.
• Fair-code Sustainable Use terms fit the intended internal deployment.
• You have budgeted for Business or Scale features where external connections or advanced permissions require them.
• You are comfortable operating NocoDB's recommended multi-service production stack.

Final Verdict

For a fresh Airtable-style database, Baserow is the simpler default recommendation: its core model is direct, the open-source edition uses MIT, and its self-hosting path is well documented. For a team whose primary requirement is working with external PostgreSQL or MySQL data, NocoDB is the more relevant product to evaluate, provided its plan and license fit the deployment.

Neither product wins every category. Run a proof of concept using your real schema, permission matrix, largest expected table, API workload, and backup/restore process. That test will reveal more than a feature checklist—and it prevents plan-gated features from becoming a surprise after migration.

See our Airtable alternatives roundup 2026 for a broader comparison that includes Notion, Coda, and Smartsheet.