Managed relational databases · October 2026 Edition
Amazon Aurora vs Supabase
Four of fourteen models named Amazon Aurora first on the direct prompt; zero named Supabase. Amazon Aurora was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Supabase by nine and Amazon Aurora carries 39 labels and Supabase 18, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in two categories this edition.
Named in three categories this edition.
First-choice share12%7%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate21%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#6A position in a field of 9; printed, not drawn.
Labels3918A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Amazon Aurora reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Amazon RDS was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Amazon RDS vs Amazon Aurora · Amazon RDS vs Supabase · Amazon Aurora vs Google Cloud SQL
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the managed relational databases page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Amazon AuroraFirst choices, of fourteen modelsSupabase
Direct40
Paraphrase301 against Amazon Aurora
Comparative50
Budget-constrained04
Scale-constrained00
Negative006 against Amazon Aurora · 1 against Supabase
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Amazon Aurora and Supabase were named in the same answer twenty-three times, of the 107 answers naming Amazon Aurora and the 82 naming Supabase. In those answers Supabase took the first choice five times and Amazon Aurora two.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Amazon Aurora and Supabase stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | |||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | |||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | ||||
| Mistral Small | | | ||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | ||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | | |||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | ||||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | |
Amazon Aurora Supabase first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Amazon Aurora on the left and Supabase on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Amazon Aurora and Supabase stood in it.
Amazon Aurora first, Supabase not the choice
4 of 14 modelsSupabase was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniAmazon Aurora, Amazon RDS alternatives: Azure Database for PostgreSQL, Azure SQL Database, Google Cloud SQL
Gemini 3.5 FlashAmazon Aurora alternatives: Aiven, AlloyDB for PostgreSQL, Azure SQL Database, Neon
Mistral SmallAmazon Aurora alternatives: Azure SQL Database, Google Cloud SQL
Llama 4 MaverickAmazon Aurora, Amazon RDS alternatives: Ntirety, Rackspace Technology
Neither was the first choice, one was named
4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Kimi K2Amazon RDS alternatives: Amazon Aurora, Azure SQL Database, Google Cloud SQL, Neon
MiniMax M2.5Amazon RDS alternatives: Amazon Aurora, DigitalOcean Managed Databases, Google Cloud SQL
GPT-6 LunaAmazon RDS alternatives: Amazon Aurora, Azure Database for PostgreSQL, Google Cloud SQL
Muse Glimmer 30BAmazon RDS alternatives: Amazon Aurora, Azure SQL Database, Google Cloud SQL
Neither was named
6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Amazon RDS alternatives: Azure SQL Database
Perplexity SonarAmazon RDS alternatives: Azure SQL Database, Google Cloud SQL
Grok 4.1 FastGoogle Cloud SQL alternatives: Aiven, Amazon RDS, Azure SQL Database, DigitalOcean Managed Databases
DeepSeek V4 FlashAmazon RDS alternatives: Azure SQL Database, Google Cloud SQL
Qwen 3.7 FlashAmazon RDS alternatives: Azure Database for SQL Server / PostgreSQL, Neon, Vercel Postgres
GLM 4.7 FlashXGoogle Cloud SQL alternatives: Amazon RDS, Azure Database
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Supabase leads by sixteen points.
Supabase18%#2 of 8Amazon Aurora1%#7 of 8Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Amazon Aurora leads at mid-market.
Amazon Aurora12%#2 of 9Supabase7%#6 of 9Enterprise
Amazon Aurora leads by twenty-six points.
Amazon Aurora26%#1 of 8Supabase0%#– of 8What the models said about Amazon Aurora
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Experts advise caution or avoidance for production environments where stable performance is critical.” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Aurora uses internal optimizations and sometimes proprietary features ... that can make migrating back to standard MySQL/Postgres difficult” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“While Aurora is popular, be cautious about: Complex pricing - I/O charges can escalate unpredictably” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“a recommended hosted SQL database could be PostgreSQL with a cloud-managed service like AWS Aurora, as it balances capability, cost, and operational simplicity” Llama 4 Maverick · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Pick AWS RDS/Aurora for broadest engine breadth and ecosystem maturity, and for cloud-native Aurora performance with MySQL/PostgreSQL compatibility.” Muse Glimmer 30B · comparative prompt · first choice
“is Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) or Amazon Aurora, as they are fully managed relational database services” Llama 4 Maverick · direct prompt · first choice
What the models said about Supabase
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“you must be cautious about adopting it for long-term, enterprise-scale relational workloads” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“If you're just starting and want a free tier that doesn't expire, Supabase or Neon are excellent.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“Supabase or Neon (both serverless PostgreSQL) stand out as the best managed relational database services” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · first choice
“My overall pick: For most small companies with limited budgets, Supabase is the best value” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Amazon RDS vs Amazon AuroraAmazon RDS vs SupabaseAmazon Aurora vs Google Cloud SQLAmazon Aurora vs NeonAmazon Aurora vs DigitalOcean Managed DatabasesAmazon Aurora vs Azure SQL DatabaseGoogle Cloud SQL vs SupabaseNeon vs SupabaseDigitalOcean Managed Databases vs SupabaseSupabase vs Azure SQL DatabaseAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full managed databases standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.