head-to-head- moat comparison
recurly.comvssupabase.com
which is easier to compete with?
- attack supabase first.shallower moat.
clone time
10 weeks
contested10 weeks
recurly.com
subscription management & recurring billing platform
45/ 100
wedge scorefull report ↗
→vs←
clone time
3 months
contested3 months
supabase.com
Postgres backend-as-a-service platform
56/ 100
wedge scorefull report ↗
moat
how deep is each moat.
-1.1
recurly.com · aggregate
5.5/10real moat
moat delta-1.1
supabase.com · aggregate
4.4/10shallow moat
0.0
capital±0
0.0
5.6
technical±0
5.6
0.0
network±0
0.0
10.0
switching-6.0 →
4.0
4.0
data-4.0 →
0.0
0.0
regulatory±0
0.0
8.0
distribution+1.3 →
9.3
overlap
where they fight, where they don't.
features only one ships, plus the small middle they share.
only recurly.com · 55
fraud detectionintegrationsinvoicingsubscription billing statewebhooks
shared · 33
serverless / edge platformllm inferencesubscriptions
only supabase.com · 11
api platform
stack
what they're built on.
shared infra and the differentiating bits.
only recurly.com · 33
GTMStripeTrigger.dev
shared infra · 77
CloudflareNext.jsPostgresCloudflare R2ResendSupabaseVercel
only supabase.com · 66
elixirFly.ioGitHubhetzner vpsReactSentry
floor
cost + time, side by side.
monthly floorrecurly.com wins
recurly.com
$47 + usage
supabase.com
$54 + usage
delta −$7recurly.com costs less per month to keep the lights on.
time to clonerecurly.com wins
recurly.com
10 weeks
supabase.com
3 months
10 weeks vs. 3 months.
the verdict
same comparison surface, two different walls. give the supabase attack a month. circle back to recurly only if you genuinely need what it does that the other doesn't.
full reportcontested · 45
→ read the recurly.com report
full reportcontested · 56
→ read the supabase.com report
← saaspocalypse · directoryhead-to-head