OutSystems vs Supabase
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
OutSystems is the stronger AI pick in Low-Code & No-Code: it has a visibility score of 40.2 versus 3.6 for Supabase, and ranks ahead in 33% of the answers that name both.
Choose OutSystems if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (40.2 vs 3.6)
- AI answers describe it more positively (42% vs 18% positive)
- You need SOC 2 Type II or ISO 22301 or FedRAMP Authorized or HIPAA or PCI DSS or GDPR or ENS (Spain) or ACN (Italy) or DESC (UAE) coverage
- You prefer a larger, established vendor (1,001–5,000 employees)
Choose Supabase if…
- You need SOC 2 Type 2 or HIPAA (BAA available) coverage
- Integrates smoothly with Firebase and Supabase
- Zero extra infrastructure when already running Postgres via Supabase
- Pay nothing extra for pgvector on an existing database
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 3
| Metric | OutSystems | Supabase |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 40.2% | 3.6% |
| Change vs last week | down−2.5% | New |
| Rank in Low-Code & No-Code | #2 | #27 |
| Share of voice | 8.2% | 0.9% |
| Mentions this run | 47 | 6 |
| Positive in AI answers | 42% | 18% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
OutSystems −2.3999999999999986pp · Supabase +3.6pp over 1 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
OutSystems leads on 3 of 3 engines
Head to head in AI answers
3 engine answers name both brands
| Prompt | Engine | OutSystems | Supabase |
|---|---|---|---|
| What are the best Low-Code & No-Code tools in 2026? | ChatGPT | #16 | #12 |
| Top low-code platform options for B2B SaaS companies | ChatGPT | #8 | #7 |
| Compare the leading Low-Code & No-Code platforms | ChatGPT | #2 | #16 |
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | OutSystems | Supabase |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Flat tiers | Flat tiers |
| Entry price | Contact sales | Free; paid from $25 / mo |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Deployment | Cloud, hybrid and sovereign cloud deployment, with a self-hosted on-premises option in certain plans | Hosted cloud in AWS regions across the US, EU and Asia Pacific, or self-hosted open source |
| Integrations | 400+ | — |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, ISO 22301, FedRAMP Authorized, HIPAA, PCI DSS, GDPR, ENS (Spain), ACN (Italy), DESC (UAE) | SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA (BAA available) |
| Support | — | Community support (Free plan), Email support (Pro plan), Priority email support and SLAs (Team plan), 24x7 premium enterprise support and private Slack channel (Enterprise plan) |
| Founded | 2001 | 2020 |
| Headquarters | Boston, Massachusetts, United States | Remote-first, United States |
| Employees | 1,001–5,000 | 201–500 |
| Funding | Series F, led by KKR | Series D · $1000M raised |
| Best for | Regulated enterprises that need to modernize legacy systems and run custom apps and agents they can trust | Teams building production applications on Postgres that want auth, storage, realtime and vector search in one backend |
Plans side by side
OutSystems
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
OutSystems
- Enterprise-grade scalability for complex, mission-critical applications
- High performance and speed in app delivery
- Strong analyst rankings as an enterprise low-code leader
- Full-stack web and mobile app development with omnichannel reach
- Modernizing legacy systems and deep integrations
- Quote-based, opaque enterprise pricing
- High cost for enterprise tiers
Supabase
- Integrates smoothly with Firebase and Supabase
- Zero extra infrastructure when already running Postgres via Supabase
- Pay nothing extra for pgvector on an existing database
- Minimal operational overhead for existing Postgres clusters
- Offers vector search via pgvector, with customers paying only for the database
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 98.8%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “OutSystems vs Supabase”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/outsystems-vs-supabase, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.