Convex vs Neon
Convex and Neon both answer the same question: where does your data live? A reactive backend where you write TypeScript functions instead of SQL, and queries push updates to clients automatically. Serverless Postgres that separates storage from compute, so branches of your database work like branches of your code. Neon covers more of the ecosystem, so it survives a change of framework; Convex is the better fit while you stay where it is strongest.
Verdict
Neon covers more of the ecosystem, so it survives a change of framework; Convex is the better fit while you stay where it is strongest.
Pick Convex if
- ✓Queries are reactive by default, so live-updating UI needs no subscription plumbing.
- ✓Backend functions are TypeScript sharing types with the frontend end to end.
- ✓Transactions and scheduling are built in, so background jobs need no extra service.
Pick Neon if
- ✓Database branching gives every pull request a realistic copy of production data.
- ✓Compute scales to zero, so idle side projects cost almost nothing.
- ✓Plain Postgres wire protocol, so any existing driver or ORM connects unchanged.
| Comparison | Convex | Neon |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing shape | Free tier for small projects, then a per-developer plan with usage-based function calls and storage. | Free tier with limited storage and compute hours, then usage-based billing for compute time and stored data. |
| Frameworks | Next.js, React Native, Expo | Next.js, SvelteKit, Nuxt, Laravel, Django, Rails |
| In one line | A reactive backend where you write TypeScript functions instead of SQL, and queries push updates to clients automatically. | Serverless Postgres that separates storage from compute, so branches of your database work like branches of your code. |
Pricing described qualitatively because published plans change often. Checked 2026-08-23. Confirm current terms on Convex and Neon.
Convex
Strengths
- ✓Queries are reactive by default, so live-updating UI needs no subscription plumbing.
- ✓Backend functions are TypeScript sharing types with the frontend end to end.
- ✓Transactions and scheduling are built in, so background jobs need no extra service.
- ✓No separate API layer to write, since client calls functions directly.
Tradeoffs
- ✗Not SQL, so analytics tools and reporting stacks do not plug straight in.
- ✗The programming model is proprietary, making a later migration a rewrite.
- ✗Complex relational queries are more awkward than in a relational engine.
- ✗Smaller ecosystem, so fewer existing libraries assume Convex as the store.
Neon
Strengths
- ✓Database branching gives every pull request a realistic copy of production data.
- ✓Compute scales to zero, so idle side projects cost almost nothing.
- ✓Plain Postgres wire protocol, so any existing driver or ORM connects unchanged.
- ✓Point-in-time restore falls out of the storage design rather than being bolted on.
Tradeoffs
- ✗Scale to zero means the first query after idle pays a cold start.
- ✗Storage and compute separation adds latency compared to a local disk.
- ✗It is only the database, so auth, storage and jobs stay your problem.
- ✗Branch sprawl needs its own cleanup discipline once a team gets going.
Frequently asked questions
Is Convex or Neon better?
Neither is better in the abstract. Neon covers more of the ecosystem, so it survives a change of framework; Convex is the better fit while you stay where it is strongest. The wrong choice here is usually recoverable, so weight speed of decision over certainty.
What is the main drawback of Convex?
Not SQL, so analytics tools and reporting stacks do not plug straight in. The programming model is proprietary, making a later migration a rewrite.
What is the main drawback of Neon?
Scale to zero means the first query after idle pays a cold start. Storage and compute separation adds latency compared to a local disk.
Can you switch from one to the other later?
Usually, at a cost that grows with how much of your product leans on the database layer. The sooner you wrap it in your own interface, the cheaper the exit stays.