Hetzner vs Supabase

• Hetzner provides a flat $5.00/mo entry point for 1000 GB of storage, while Supabase’s object storage scales from $0.00 to $7460.00/mo with a significantly lower entry capacity of 0.5 GB.
• Storage overages on Hetzner remain negligible at $0.005/GB, whereas Supabase charges a substantial $0.13/GB for additional capacity.
• Hetzner offers effectively unlimited egress, charging a minimal $0.00119/GB for bandwidth. Supabase limits egress to between 5 GB and 250 GB, with subsequent usage billed at $0.09/GB.

Hetzner’s pricing model is built for high-volume data retention where bandwidth costs are the primary concern. By providing a massive base allocation of 1000 GB for a fixed monthly fee, it mirrors the utility of raw S3-compatible buckets often deployed on bare-metal hardware. This approach is efficient for static asset hosting or backups. The infrastructure here avoids the complexity of managed application services, functioning strictly as a storage layer. In contrast, Supabase treats object storage as a secondary component of its broader platform, leading to significantly higher costs for large-scale data storage. You pay a premium for the integration with their managed database and authentication systems, which makes it less suitable for simple file storage tasks.

The financial disparity between these two is stark for anyone maintaining terabytes of data. Hetzner handles large volumes at a fraction of the cost, while Supabase imposes heavy penalties once you exceed their relatively tight storage and egress quotas. Using Supabase for bulk storage quickly becomes unsustainable compared to Hetzner’s commodity-priced storage model, which is better suited for teams that simply need a place to dump files without worrying about complex tier-based billing.