Backend-as-a-Service
The biggest real distinction between Appwrite and Convex is straightforward: Appwrite carries low lock-in while Convex has high lock-in. Appwrite sits at hybrid pricing with $25/mo/project (Pro), a free tier, enterprise plan available and carries low lock-in, while Convex sits at hybrid pricing with $25/member/mo (Pro), a free tier, enterprise plan available and carries high lock-in. Appwrite is a fit when you need mobile, teams — typical scenarios include mvp/prototyping speed. Convex is aimed at mobile, teams, with workloads like mvp/prototyping speed as the common case. The honest trade-off: Appwrite is explicitly not for complex custom business logic; Convex is not intended for complex custom business logic. Lock-in is the factor most teams underestimate: Appwrite and Convex have different exit paths, and that shapes total cost of ownership over a two-to-three year horizon. Before committing, audit where each tool stores state, which APIs you depend on, and how painful a switch would be six months in.
Quick take
Appwrite is for mobile, teams; Convex is for mobile, teams; decide based on how much lock-in you can accept.
 Appwrite | | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backend-as-a-Service | Backend-as-a-Service |
| Pricing Model | hybrid | hybrid |
| Entry Price | $25/mo/project (Pro) | $25/member/mo (Pro) |
| Free Tier | Yes | Yes |
| Billing Complexity | low | low |
| Developer Experience | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Pricing Transparency | 5/5 | 4/5 |
| Lock-in Level | low | high |
| Migration Complexity | low | high |
| Data Portability | Full — you own the data | Via API export |
| Enterprise | Available | Available |
| GitHub Stars | 55.7k | 11.3k |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | NOASSERTION |
Low — open-source, self-hosted, standard under tofrom
Migration difficulty: low
Data you keep: Full — you own the data
API standard: REST API, open-source
Risk notes: Low — open-source, self-hosted, standard under tofrom
💡 Standard protocols make switching straightforward
High — reactive data model proprietary, no standard SQL
Migration difficulty: high
Data you keep: Via API export
API standard: Proprietary
Risk notes: High — reactive data model proprietary, no standard SQL
💡 Plan 2-4 weeks minimum. Consider running parallel during migration
Choose Appwrite if your primary workload is mobile, teams and hybrid pricing ($25/mo/project (Pro)) is acceptable.
Not for: Complex custom business logic
Choose Convex if your primary workload is mobile, teams and hybrid pricing ($25/member/mo (Pro)) is acceptable.
Not for: Complex custom business logic
Check each tool's dedicated page for deeper reviews, setup notes, and pros/cons.
It depends on workload shape: Appwrite lists $25/mo/project (Pro), while Convex lists $25/member/mo (Pro). With different pricing models (hybrid vs hybrid), the cheaper option flips based on seat count, usage volume, and whether you use the free tier. Do a per-workload estimate rather than comparing headline numbers.
Migrating from Appwrite to Convex is generally feasible because Appwrite has low lock-in, so data and configuration are usually portable. Since both tools sit in the same category (Backend-as-a-Service), the conceptual mapping is closer, but you still need to validate feature parity against your specific workload. Plan migration as a project, not a script: inventory integrations, test on non-production workloads, and keep Appwrite running in parallel until Convex is verified.
Our data gives Appwrite and Convex the same developer experience score (5/5), so neither has a clear edge on DX by that measure. The differentiator is usually how each tool fits your workflow — things like CLI quality, docs, local dev loop, and error messages. The safest call is to pilot both on a representative task and see which one gets out of your way.
Convex is in the same category as Appwrite (Backend-as-a-Service), so it's a reasonable alternative to evaluate. Both tools claim similar best-fit workloads on paper, so the real test is how each behaves under your specific constraints. Note that Convex is explicitly not for complex custom business logic — if that describes your workload, it's not a viable replacement.
Comments powered by Giscus (GitHub Discussions). You need a GitHub account to comment.