Databases · head to head
FaunaDB vs YugabyteDB

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

YugabyteDB
Databases
Open source distributed SQL database for cloud native apps
- 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.; YugabyteDB missing PostgreSQL functions and extensions despite claiming compatibility
- They diverge on capability: FaunaDB covers Document-relational model, YugabyteDB covers PostgreSQL Compatible.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which FaunaDB and YugabyteDB actually diverge.
| Attribute | FaunaDB | YugabyteDB |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | freemium | Unknown |
| Platforms | Web | Cloud, On-premises, Kubernetes |
| Founded | 2012 | 2016 |
Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), 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 YugabyteDB
- PostgreSQL Compatible
- Distributed SQL
- Geo-distribution
- Linear Scalability
- High Availability
- ACID Transactions
- CDC Support
- PostgreSQL
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 YugabyteDB
- Extracting historical data from a Fauna dataset that can no longer be reached through the hosted APInot YugabyteDB
- Studying a production implementation of deterministic distributed transactions, since the full server source is now readable under Apache 2.0not YugabyteDB
- Forking the engine deliberately, where an organisation has JVM and distributed-systems staff and wants a document-relational store it fully controlsnot YugabyteDB
YugabyteDB
- Transaction processingnot FaunaDB
- Data storagenot FaunaDB
- Application backendnot FaunaDB
- Reportingnot FaunaDB
- Data analyticsnot 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.
YugabyteDB
- Missing PostgreSQL functions and extensions despite claiming compatibility
- Not a true PostgreSQL replacement requiring schema and query compatibility testing before migration
- Requires careful isolation level management or risk data corruption in production
- Lacks built-in OLAP capabilities, requiring external systems for analytics
- Coupled compute and storage scaling reduces optimization flexibility
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
YugabyteDB
FreeNo published plan breakdown. See the YugabyteDB review.
Which should you pick?
Choose FaunaDB if
- You need document-relational model.
- You want to start without paying.
- You also want fql v10.
Choose YugabyteDB if
- You need postgresql compatible.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Cloud, On-premises, Kubernetes.
- You also want distributed sql.
Questions people ask
- Is FaunaDB or YugabyteDB better?
- Neither clearly leads. FaunaDB starts at Free and YugabyteDB at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, FaunaDB or YugabyteDB?
- FaunaDB starts at Free and YugabyteDB at Free.
- Does FaunaDB or YugabyteDB run on more platforms?
- FaunaDB runs on Web. YugabyteDB runs on Cloud, On-premises, Kubernetes.
- 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 YugabyteDB is typically brought in for.
- What can FaunaDB do that YugabyteDB cannot?
- FaunaDB covers Document-relational model, FQL v10, Distributed ACID transactions, HTTPS access. YugabyteDB covers PostgreSQL Compatible, Distributed SQL, Geo-distribution, Linear Scalability.
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.
YugabyteDB: Is YugabyteDB a true drop-in replacement for PostgreSQL?
No, YugabyteDB is PostgreSQL-compatible but not a zero-change drop-in replacement. It requires compatibility testing with queries, stored procedures, and ORM configurations before migration.
SourceFaunaDB: 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.
YugabyteDB: What isolation levels does YugabyteDB support?
YugabyteDB allows per-query selection between serializable isolation for critical operations and read-committed for analytics. However, this flexibility requires careful management to avoid accidental data corruption.
SourceFaunaDB: 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.
YugabyteDB: Does YugabyteDB support both SQL and NoSQL workloads?
Yes, YugabyteDB offers YSQL for PostgreSQL-compatible SQL and YCQL for Cassandra-like NoSQL workloads, using the same DocDB storage engine to support both simultaneously.
SourceFaunaDB: 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.
YugabyteDB: Can YugabyteDB scale compute and storage independently?
No, YugabyteDB couples compute and storage scaling, unlike TiDB which separates them. This means scaling decisions are less flexible and optimization is more complex.
SourceFaunaDB: 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.
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 Couchbase
- FaunaDB vs TimescaleDB
- FaunaDB vs NATS
- FaunaDB vs SingleStore
- FaunaDB vs Instaclustr
- FaunaDB vs Elasticsearch
- FaunaDB vs TiDB
- FaunaDB vs Qdrant
- FaunaDB vs Readyset
- FaunaDB vs Redpanda
- FaunaDB vs RisingWave
- FaunaDB vs ScyllaDB
- FaunaDB vs Solace PubSub+
- FaunaDB vs SQLite
- YugabyteDB vs Amazon Aurora
- YugabyteDB vs PostgreSQL
- YugabyteDB vs Airtable
- YugabyteDB vs Cockroach Labs
- YugabyteDB vs BigQuery
- YugabyteDB vs CouchDB
- YugabyteDB vs CosmosDB
- YugabyteDB vs ArangoDB
- YugabyteDB vs Dgraph
- YugabyteDB vs DynamoDB
- YugabyteDB vs Google Cloud SQL
- YugabyteDB vs Apache Pinot
- YugabyteDB vs Amazon RDS
- YugabyteDB vs Apache Pulsar
- YugabyteDB vs Cassandra
- YugabyteDB vs Amazon Redshift
- YugabyteDB vs Couchbase
- YugabyteDB vs TimescaleDB
- YugabyteDB vs NATS
- YugabyteDB vs SingleStore
- YugabyteDB vs Instaclustr
- YugabyteDB vs Elasticsearch
- YugabyteDB vs TiDB
- YugabyteDB vs Qdrant
- YugabyteDB vs Readyset
- YugabyteDB vs Redpanda
- YugabyteDB vs RisingWave
- YugabyteDB vs ScyllaDB
- YugabyteDB vs Solace PubSub+
- YugabyteDB vs SQLite
