Softwr

Spreadsheets · head to head

Rowy vs VerneMQ

Rowy logo

Rowy

Spreadsheets

Spreadsheet interface for Google Cloud Firestore with cloud functions written in the browser

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
VerneMQ logo

VerneMQ

Databases

Erlang MQTT broker whose source is Apache 2.0 but whose official binaries need a paid subscription

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Rowy every Firestore limit is inherited, including the one megabyte per document ceiling and roughly one sustained write per second per document, which surprises users who expect spreadsheet behaviour.; VerneMQ the official binaries and Docker images are not Apache 2.0 but sit under a EULA requiring a yearly commercial subscription, a distinction easy to miss and awkward to discover during a licence audit.
  • They diverge on capability: Rowy covers Firestore backed grid, VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Rowy and VerneMQ actually diverge.

Attributes where Rowy and VerneMQ differ
AttributeRowyVerneMQ
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feequote
PlatformsWebLinux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes
CategorySpreadsheetsDatabases

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).

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 Rowy

  • Firestore backed grid
  • Browser authored cloud functions
  • Typed columns
  • Runs in your Google Cloud project
  • Role based access
  • Form view
  • Open source

Only in VerneMQ

  • Erlang/OTP clustering
  • MQTT 5.0 support
  • Plugin system
  • Backpressure handling
  • Bridge support
  • Metrics export
  • MQTT over WebSockets
  • Pluggable auth backends

What people use each for

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

Rowy

  • A Firebase application that needs an internal admin interface without building onenot VerneMQ
  • Operations staff correcting production records in Firestore without developer involvementnot VerneMQ
  • Attaching a small transformation or notification function to a field change without a full deployment pipelinenot VerneMQ
  • A content team populating documents that a mobile application reads directly from Firestorenot VerneMQ

VerneMQ

  • An industrial operator that wants an MQTT broker with predictable memory behaviour and no data integration features it will not usenot Rowy
  • A team building from source to stay strictly under Apache 2.0 terms with no vendor licence entanglementnot Rowy
  • A deployment needing custom authentication logic implemented as a plugin in Lua or over a webhooknot Rowy
  • An organisation that wants a broker maintained by a small European company rather than by a vendor that keeps changing licencesnot Rowy

Where each one falls short

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

Rowy

  • Every Firestore limit is inherited, including the one megabyte per document ceiling and roughly one sustained write per second per document, which surprises users who expect spreadsheet behaviour.
  • Firestore has no joins, so linking tables in the grid is a convenience layer rather than a relational feature and reports across collections still need a separate query.
  • It is useful only to teams already on Firebase, so choosing it effectively locks the operational tooling to one cloud vendor.
  • Query costs are billed by document read, and an unfiltered grid on a large collection can generate a bill that a spreadsheet user has no intuition for.
  • Development activity has slowed relative to the broader category, so evaluate current maintenance before making it load bearing for internal operations.

VerneMQ

  • The official binaries and Docker images are not Apache 2.0 but sit under a EULA requiring a yearly commercial subscription, a distinction easy to miss and awkward to discover during a licence audit.
  • Octavo Labs is a very small company, so support depth, response times and the bus factor on the codebase are materially thinner than at HiveMQ or EMQ.
  • There is no data integration or rule engine layer, so routing messages into a database means writing and operating your own consumer service.
  • Operating an Erlang cluster requires runtime knowledge that most teams do not have and will use for nothing else in their stack.
  • There is no vendor-managed cloud offering, so every deployment is self-operated with the infrastructure and on-call cost that implies.

Pricing, plan by plan

Rowy

Free
  • Open source self hostedFree
    • No licence fee
    • Deploys into your own Google Cloud project
    • You pay Google Cloud for Firestore reads, writes and storage

VerneMQ

Free
  • Source buildFree
    • Apache 2.0 licensed source from GitHub
    • Full clustering and plugin capability
    • You compile and package it yourself
  • Binary packages and Docker images$undefined/year
    • Covered by the VerneMQ EULA, not Apache 2.0
    • Yearly usage subscription expected for commercial use
    • Official builds and Docker images
  • Commercial support$undefined/year
    • Evaluation, customisation and operations assistance
    • Custom development
    • Long-term maintenance agreements

Which should you pick?

Choose Rowy if

  • You need firestore backed grid.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You also want browser authored cloud functions.
Rowy review

Choose VerneMQ if

  • You need erlang/otp clustering.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
  • You also want mqtt 5.0 support.
VerneMQ review

Questions people ask

Is Rowy or VerneMQ better?
Neither clearly leads. Rowy starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Rowy or VerneMQ?
Rowy starts at Free and VerneMQ at Free.
Does Rowy or VerneMQ run on more platforms?
Rowy runs on Web. VerneMQ runs on Linux, Docker, macOS, Kubernetes.
Can I use Rowy for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Rowy best used for?
Rowy is most often used for a firebase application that needs an internal admin interface without building one, operations staff correcting production records in firestore without developer involvement, attaching a small transformation or notification function to a field change without a full deployment pipeline, a content team populating documents that a mobile application reads directly from firestore. Of those, a firebase application that needs an internal admin interface without building one and operations staff correcting production records in firestore without developer involvement are not what VerneMQ is typically brought in for.
What can Rowy do that VerneMQ cannot?
Rowy covers Firestore backed grid, Browser authored cloud functions, Typed columns, Runs in your Google Cloud project. VerneMQ covers Erlang/OTP clustering, MQTT 5.0 support, Plugin system, Backpressure handling.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Rowy: Where is my data stored?

In your own Firestore instance inside your own Google Cloud project. Rowy does not hold a copy.

VerneMQ: Is VerneMQ free?

The source is Apache 2.0 and free. The official binary packages and Docker images are covered by a separate EULA that expects a yearly fee for commercial use.

Rowy: What does it cost to run?

No licence fee. You pay Google Cloud for Firestore reads, writes, storage and function invocations, and an open grid on a big collection reads a lot.

VerneMQ: Is the project still maintained?

Yes. Octavo Labs AG in Zurich continues to publish 2.x releases, most recently in 2026.

Rowy: Can it do joins across collections?

Not really. Firestore does not support joins, and no interface layer can add them.

VerneMQ: Does it have a managed cloud?

No. Every deployment is self-hosted, with commercial support available from Octavo Labs.

Rowy: Is there a row limit?

Not from Rowy. The limits that bite are Firestore document size and per document write throughput.

VerneMQ: How does it compare to EMQX?

Narrower in features and without a rule engine, but with a simpler licence story for source builds after EMQX moved to BSL.

Rowy: Is it suitable if I am not on Firebase?

No. It is specifically a Firestore interface.

Share

Related pages

More on Rowy

More on VerneMQ

Keep looking

Other head to heads