Convex vs Turso
Convex and Turso 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. SQLite as a hosted service, replicated to the edge, with the option of one small database per customer. Turso 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
Turso 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 Turso if
- ✓Database per tenant is cheap, which makes hard isolation between customers practical.
- ✓Edge replicas put reads physically close to the user.
- ✓SQLite semantics are simple and identical to what you run in tests locally.
| Comparison | Convex | Turso |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing shape | Free tier for small projects, then a per-developer plan with usage-based function calls and storage. | Generous free tier, then usage-based on rows read and written plus stored data. |
| Frameworks | Next.js, React Native, Expo | Next.js, SvelteKit, Nuxt |
| In one line | A reactive backend where you write TypeScript functions instead of SQL, and queries push updates to clients automatically. | SQLite as a hosted service, replicated to the edge, with the option of one small database per customer. |
Pricing described qualitatively because published plans change often. Checked 2026-08-23. Confirm current terms on Convex and Turso.
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.
Turso
Strengths
- ✓Database per tenant is cheap, which makes hard isolation between customers practical.
- ✓Edge replicas put reads physically close to the user.
- ✓SQLite semantics are simple and identical to what you run in tests locally.
- ✓Embedded replicas let a server read locally and sync writes upstream.
Tradeoffs
- ✗SQLite has one writer, so write-heavy workloads hit a ceiling by design.
- ✗Fewer data types and functions than Postgres, so some modelling gets manual.
- ✗Managing thousands of small databases becomes its own operational surface.
- ✗Replication lag means a read after write can return stale data.
Frequently asked questions
Is Convex or Turso better?
Neither is better in the abstract. Turso covers more of the ecosystem, so it survives a change of framework; Convex is the better fit while you stay where it is strongest. Decide on the tradeoff you can live with, then stop reading comparisons and ship.
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 Turso?
SQLite has one writer, so write-heavy workloads hit a ceiling by design. Fewer data types and functions than Postgres, so some modelling gets manual.
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.