Softwr

Databases · head to head

FaunaDB vs turbopuffer

FaunaDB logo

FaunaDB

Databases

Document-relational database whose hosted service closed in 2025 and whose core is now unmaintained Apache 2.0 code.

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
turbopuffer logo

turbopuffer

Databases

Closed-source vector and full-text search service built directly on object storage, with cold queries measured in seconds rather than milliseconds.

From
$16/month
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only FaunaDB has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: FaunaDB the hosted service was wound down in 2025, so there is no managed Fauna to buy; every remaining user either operates a JVM cluster themselves or migrates, and both are projects rather than tasks.; turbopuffer a cold namespace pays object storage latency on the first query, with a documented p90 around 1,214 ms on a million documents, so any interactive search box needs the data kept warm or the user waits about a second.
  • They diverge on capability: FaunaDB covers Document-relational model, turbopuffer covers Object storage architecture.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which FaunaDB and turbopuffer actually diverge.

Attributes where FaunaDB and turbopuffer differ
AttributeFaunaDBturbopuffer
Starting priceFree$16/month
Pricing modelfreemiumsubscription
Free tierYesNo
Founded2012Unknown

Identical on both: platforms (Web), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Databases).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in FaunaDB

  • Document-relational model
  • FQL v10
  • Distributed ACID transactions
  • HTTPS access
  • User-defined functions
  • Attribute-based access control
  • Document history
  • Event streaming

Only in turbopuffer

  • Object storage architecture
  • Namespaces
  • Vector search
  • Full-text search
  • Attribute filtering
  • Documented limits
  • Configurable consistency
  • Durable writes

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

FaunaDB

  • Keeping an existing Fauna-backed application alive on self-hosted infrastructure while a migration is planned and fundednot turbopuffer
  • Extracting historical data from a Fauna dataset that can no longer be reached through the hosted APInot turbopuffer
  • Studying a production implementation of deterministic distributed transactions, since the full server source is now readable under Apache 2.0not turbopuffer
  • Forking the engine deliberately, where an organisation has JVM and distributed-systems staff and wants a document-relational store it fully controlsnot turbopuffer

turbopuffer

  • A product with one search index per customer and thousands of customers, most of whose data is idle on any given daynot FaunaDB
  • Very large corpora where holding every vector in memory is the dominant cost and occasional cold-query latency is acceptablenot FaunaDB
  • Hybrid retrieval combining BM25 and vector search where running and synchronising two separate systems is the problem being solvednot FaunaDB
  • Retrieval for agent and assistant products where indexes are created and destroyed frequently and per-index overhead must be near zeronot FaunaDB

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

FaunaDB

  • The hosted service was wound down in 2025, so there is no managed Fauna to buy; every remaining user either operates a JVM cluster themselves or migrates, and both are projects rather than tasks.
  • The open-sourced repository has had no substantive activity since May 2025 and the drivers were frozen alongside it, so you inherit responsibility for security patches in a Scala distributed database that almost nobody else is running.
  • FQL has no wire or dialect compatibility with anything else, so migrating off is a rewrite of every query, index and access rule in the application rather than a data export.
  • No BI tool, ORM or CDC connector speaks FQL, so reporting and analytics always required exporting the data first, and that export tooling is now also unmaintained.
  • The community was small before the shutdown and has dispersed since, so operational answers, tuning advice and people who have run a Fauna cluster in anger are all scarce when something breaks.

turbopuffer

  • A cold namespace pays object storage latency on the first query, with a documented p90 around 1,214 ms on a million documents, so any interactive search box needs the data kept warm or the user waits about a second.
  • Queries are eventually consistent by default, and after roughly 128 MiB of outstanding writes new data is invisible until indexed, which the vendor puts at tens of seconds for small namespaces and tens of minutes for large ones, so a bulk re-index is not immediately queryable.
  • It is closed source with no community edition, so single-tenant or bring-your-own-cloud deployment is a commercial negotiation rather than a deployment choice, and there is no path to running it yourself if the relationship ends.
  • Per-namespace ceilings, roughly 10,000 writes per second, 32 MB/s and 500 million documents per shard, mean a single enormous index has to be sharded across namespaces by your application rather than by the service.
  • It is a search engine, not a database: there are no joins, no cross-document transactions and no SQL, so it sits beside a primary datastore and keeping the two in step is work that belongs to you.

Pricing, plan by plan

FaunaDB

Free
  • FreeFree
    • 100K read ops
    • 50K write ops
    • 1GB storage
  • Pro$25/month
    • Pay per use
    • Priority support
    • Advanced features

turbopuffer

$16/month
  • Launch$16/month
    • All database features
    • Multi-tenancy deployment
    • SOC2 & GDPR-ready DPA
  • Scale$256/month
    • Everything in Launch
    • HIPAA-ready BAA
    • Single Sign-On (SSO)
  • Enterprise$4096/month
    • Everything in Scale
    • Single-tenancy & BYOC deployment options
    • Private networking

Which should you pick?

Choose FaunaDB if

  • You need document-relational model.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You also want fql v10.
FaunaDB review

Choose turbopuffer if

  • You need object storage architecture.
  • You also want namespaces.
turbopuffer review

Questions people ask

Is FaunaDB or turbopuffer better?
Neither clearly leads. FaunaDB starts at Free and turbopuffer at $16/month, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, FaunaDB or turbopuffer?
FaunaDB has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for FaunaDB and $16/month for turbopuffer.
Does FaunaDB or turbopuffer run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
Can I use FaunaDB for free?
Yes. FaunaDB has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. turbopuffer starts at $16/month.
What is FaunaDB best used for?
FaunaDB is most often used for keeping an existing fauna-backed application alive on self-hosted infrastructure while a migration is planned and funded, extracting historical data from a fauna dataset that can no longer be reached through the hosted api, studying a production implementation of deterministic distributed transactions, since the full server source is now readable under apache 2.0, forking the engine deliberately, where an organisation has jvm and distributed-systems staff and wants a document-relational store it fully controls. Of those, keeping an existing fauna-backed application alive on self-hosted infrastructure while a migration is planned and funded and extracting historical data from a fauna dataset that can no longer be reached through the hosted api are not what turbopuffer is typically brought in for.
What can FaunaDB do that turbopuffer cannot?
FaunaDB covers Document-relational model, FQL v10, Distributed ACID transactions, HTTPS access. turbopuffer covers Object storage architecture, Namespaces, Vector search, Full-text search.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

FaunaDB: Can I still sign up for Fauna as a service?

No. Fauna Inc. wound down the hosted service in 2025 and the company website is no longer serving. The only way to run Fauna now is to build and operate the open-sourced server yourself.

turbopuffer: Can I self-host turbopuffer?

There is no open source or community edition. Single-tenant and bring-your-own-cloud deployments exist as commercial arrangements, but there is no way to run it independently of the vendor.

FaunaDB: What licence is the open-sourced code under?

Apache 2.0, with the copyright held by a FaunaDB Foundation. That is a permissive OSI licence with no competing-use clause, so you may run it, modify it and even offer it as a service.

turbopuffer: How fast is it really?

Warm queries perform comparably to in-memory search engines. Cold queries, where data is not cached, have a documented p90 around 1,214 ms on a million documents. Write p90 is around 248 ms for a 512 KB upsert because writes go straight to object storage.

FaunaDB: Is the open source version the same software that ran the cloud?

It is the core database engine. The control plane, billing, dashboard and multi-tenant operational tooling that made it a service are not part of the release, so you are running the engine, not the product.

turbopuffer: Is it consistent?

Eventually consistent by default, with the vendor reporting that over 99.8% of queries return consistent data. Strong consistency can be requested per query at a latency cost. Large write bursts have a longer visibility delay while indexing catches up.

FaunaDB: What should I migrate to?

There is no drop-in target. Teams that valued the document model with relationships usually land on Postgres with JSONB, and teams that valued the serverless HTTP access pattern usually land on DynamoDB or a managed Postgres with an HTTP driver. Either way the query layer is rewritten.

turbopuffer: What is it best at?

Large numbers of namespaces where most are idle. The architecture makes cold data cheap to keep, which is exactly the shape of a multi-tenant product with a long tail of inactive customers.

FaunaDB: How hard is it to self-host?

It builds as a fat JAR and runs as a multi-node JVM cluster. There is an OPERATING.md, but no supported packaging, no operator, no upstream releases and no support contract, so budget for a distributed-systems engineer, not a container.

turbopuffer: What are the hard limits?

Up to 128 billion documents and 256 TB per namespace, 500 million documents per shard, 64 MiB per document, 10,752 dense vector dimensions, roughly 10,000 writes per second per namespace and a maximum result set of 10,000.

Share

Related pages

More on FaunaDB

More on turbopuffer

Keep looking

Other head to heads