Databases · head to head
FaunaDB vs Xata

FaunaDB
Databases
Document-relational database whose hosted service closed in 2025 and whose core is now unmaintained Apache 2.0 code.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -

Xata
Databases
Apache 2.0 platform for running many Postgres instances on Kubernetes, with copy-on-write branching and scale-to-zero.
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
The short version
- 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.; Xata self-hosting means operating Kubernetes and CloudNativePG, so the Apache 2.0 licence removes the vendor bill but replaces it with a platform team, and a database platform is not something a part-time operator maintains safely.
- They diverge on capability: FaunaDB covers Document-relational model, Xata covers Copy-on-write branching.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which FaunaDB and Xata actually diverge.
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), 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 Xata
- Copy-on-write branching
- Scale-to-zero compute
- Compute autoscaling and bin-packing
- High availability with failover
- Point-in-time recovery
- Serverless driver
- pgroll migrations
- pgstream replication
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 Xata
- Extracting historical data from a Fauna dataset that can no longer be reached through the hosted APInot Xata
- Studying a production implementation of deterministic distributed transactions, since the full server source is now readable under Apache 2.0not Xata
- Forking the engine deliberately, where an organisation has JVM and distributed-systems staff and wants a document-relational store it fully controlsnot Xata
Xata
- Giving every pull request or coding agent its own branch of the production database, with real data volumes rather than a seeded fixturenot FaunaDB
- Running managed-Postgres economics in your own cloud account where data residency or compliance rules out a third-party control planenot FaunaDB
- Consolidating many small, mostly idle Postgres databases onto shared infrastructure where scale-to-zero and bin-packing recover the idle costnot FaunaDB
- Testing a destructive migration against a copy of production without waiting for a full restore or paying for a duplicate of the storagenot 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.
Xata
- Self-hosting means operating Kubernetes and CloudNativePG, so the Apache 2.0 licence removes the vendor bill but replaces it with a platform team, and a database platform is not something a part-time operator maintains safely.
- Copy-on-write branches are cheap to create but diverge as they are written to, so a long-lived branch carrying a heavy backfill quietly accumulates real storage and the cost arrives later than the decision that caused it.
- Scale-to-zero means the first connection after an idle period pays a cold start, which is invisible in a busy production database and very visible in a demo, a staging environment or a cron job that runs once an hour.
- The Xata sold before 2025 was a different product, a proprietary API and SDK layered over Postgres, so tutorials, blog posts and SDK examples from that era describe something that no longer exists and existing users had to migrate.
- As a managed service it competes with RDS, Aurora and Cloud SQL, and it is a much smaller company, so procurement, certification coverage and the depth of the support bench behind a 3am corruption incident are all weaker than the incumbent even though the underlying Postgres is the same.
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
Xata
Free- Free TrialFree
- 14 days free
- No credit card required
- Usage-Based$1/per 1000 branches
- 1,000 branches for $1
- Scale-to-zero compute model
- Branches hibernate when idle
Which should you pick?
Choose FaunaDB if
- You need document-relational model.
- You want to start without paying.
- You also want fql v10.
Choose Xata if
- You need copy-on-write branching.
- You want to start without paying.
- You also want scale-to-zero compute.
Questions people ask
- Is FaunaDB or Xata better?
- Neither clearly leads. FaunaDB starts at Free and Xata at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, FaunaDB or Xata?
- FaunaDB starts at Free and Xata at Free.
- Does FaunaDB or Xata run on more platforms?
- Both run on Web, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
- Can I use FaunaDB for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- 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 Xata is typically brought in for.
- What can FaunaDB do that Xata cannot?
- FaunaDB covers Document-relational model, FQL v10, Distributed ACID transactions, HTTPS access. Xata covers Copy-on-write branching, Scale-to-zero compute, Compute autoscaling and bin-packing, High availability with failover.
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.
Xata: Is it real Postgres or a compatible reimplementation?
Real Postgres. It runs upstream Postgres instances on Kubernetes via CloudNativePG, so extensions, the wire protocol and version upgrades behave as they do anywhere else.
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.
Xata: Can I self-host the whole thing?
Yes. The platform is Apache 2.0 and designed for self-hosting a large number of Postgres instances on your own Kubernetes. Xata Cloud is the same platform run as a service.
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.
Xata: Does branching copy my data?
No. Branches are copy-on-write at the storage layer, so creating one is near-instant regardless of database size and storage is only consumed as the branch diverges from its parent.
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.
Xata: Is this the same Xata I used a couple of years ago?
No. The earlier product was a proprietary database API with its own SDK and search layer. The current product is a Postgres platform, and material written for the old one does not apply.
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.
Xata: What happens to a branch when the parent changes?
A branch is a point-in-time fork. Later changes on the parent are not propagated, so long-lived branches drift and need to be recreated rather than refreshed if you want current data.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- FaunaDB vs Amazon Aurora
- FaunaDB vs PostgreSQL
- FaunaDB vs Airtable
- FaunaDB vs Cockroach Labs
- FaunaDB vs BigQuery
- FaunaDB vs CouchDB
- FaunaDB vs CosmosDB
- FaunaDB vs ArangoDB
- FaunaDB vs Dgraph
- FaunaDB vs DynamoDB
- FaunaDB vs Google Cloud SQL
- FaunaDB vs Apache Pinot
- FaunaDB vs Amazon RDS
- FaunaDB vs Apache Pulsar
- FaunaDB vs Cassandra
- FaunaDB vs Amazon Redshift
- FaunaDB vs DuckDB
- FaunaDB vs Convex
- FaunaDB vs turbopuffer
- FaunaDB vs PlanetScale
- FaunaDB vs Apache Druid
- FaunaDB vs Materialize
- FaunaDB vs Marqo
- FaunaDB vs Nile
- FaunaDB vs Ninox
- FaunaDB vs Presto
- FaunaDB vs Privacera
- FaunaDB vs RavenDB
- Xata vs Amazon Aurora
- Xata vs PostgreSQL
- Xata vs Airtable
- Xata vs Cockroach Labs
- Xata vs BigQuery
- Xata vs CouchDB
- Xata vs CosmosDB
- Xata vs ArangoDB
- Xata vs Dgraph
- Xata vs DynamoDB
- Xata vs Google Cloud SQL
- Xata vs Apache Pinot
- Xata vs Amazon RDS
- Xata vs Apache Pulsar
- Xata vs Cassandra
- Xata vs Amazon Redshift
- Xata vs DuckDB
- Xata vs Convex
- Xata vs turbopuffer
- Xata vs PlanetScale
- Xata vs Apache Druid
- Xata vs Materialize
- Xata vs Marqo
- Xata vs Nile
- Xata vs Ninox
- Xata vs Presto
- Xata vs Privacera
- Xata vs RavenDB
