CockroachDB vs Nhost Pricing (2026)

Which one is cheaper?

One or both use custom pricing, so it depends on your specific needs.

Can I use either one for free?

Both offer free plans, so you can try each without paying. Start with whichever fits your workflow better and upgrade when you hit the limits.

How do they charge?

Both use a usage-based model, so the comparison is straightforward — it comes down to features and limits at each price point.

Which one is a better deal?

Depends on what you need. CockroachDB: At $0.18/hr for 2 vCPUs, they're positioning competitively against managed Postgres alternatives like AlloyDB or Aurora, but the distributed SQL angle means they're really gunning for teams that have outgrown single-region databases — not the cheapest option, but cheaper than building multi-region resilience yourself. Nhost: Nhost is positioning as a Firebase/Supabase alternative with a more backend-complete stack (Hasura, auth, storage baked in), sitting in the mid-market on price — cheaper than rolling your own infra, but not the cheapest BaaS out there. They're going after product teams that want GraphQL-first development without the DevOps overhead, not the enterprise crowd chasing Salesforce-grade SLAs.

Still deciding? See the best CockroachDB alternatives or the best Nhost alternatives, ranked with verified pricing.