DBHub vs Supabase MCP
A side-by-side comparison of DBHub and Supabase MCP, two MCP tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
At a glance
| Attribute | DBHub | Supabase MCP |
|---|---|---|
| Category | MCP | MCP |
| Pricing | FREE | FREE |
| License | Open source | Open source |
| Deployment | — | — |
| Platforms (differs) | CLI, Web, API | API, CLI |
| Model support | Model-agnostic | Model-agnostic |
| Vendor (differs) | Bytebase | Supabase |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
DBHub
Zero-dependency MIT gateway exposing just two tools (execute_sql, search_objects), so it burns far less context than multi-tool database MCP servers.
- Free and MIT-licensed
- Token-efficient: only two MCP tools
- Five databases via one gateway
- Built-in web UI for queries + traces
- SQL databases only (no NoSQL)
- Minimal tool surface by design
- Self-run; no managed hosting
Supabase MCP
Official Supabase MCP with more security guardrails than most database MCPs, including a query-safe read-only mode.
- Manages DB, auth, storage, edge functions
- OAuth, project scoping, read-only mode
- Prompt-injection protections built in
- Erases editor-to-dashboard context switch
- Stored prompt-injection data-leak risk
- Risky against production without safeguards
- Some endpoints (execute_sql) still beta
- Runs under developer permissions
When to pick which
Both cover MCP server.
Pick Supabase MCP if you need App / agent deployment.
- App / agent deployment (secondary capability)
They also differ on:
- Platforms
- CLI, Web, API · API, CLI