#1 in managed postgres providers · $150 with pooling, backups and egress all included — the only bill here you can predict exactly.
86/100
verdictthe most complete inclusive pricing in the category — everything you'd otherwise pay extra for is in the number — with a new owner worth watching.
Crunchy Bridge vs Railway
Railway
Crunchy Bridge
price
$142.49/mo at the anchor
$150/mo at the anchor
free tier
no
no
monthly at anchor
$142.49
$150
egress
$0.05/gb
free
backups and pitr
not documented
included
scale to zero
not confirmed
no
free tier
$1/mo credit
none
switch forproduction databases where a predictable invoice matters more than a free tier.
pros
+pooling, backups and egress all included in the base price
+billed by the minute, prorated to the second
+42 regions across aws, azure and gcp
+publishes a worked pricing example matching real workloads
cons
−acquired by snowflake — long-term roadmap uncertain
#5 in managed postgres providers · genuine scale-to-zero makes this the cheapest or the dearest option here, depending entirely on whether it's running.
78/100
verdictthe wrong tool for the workload we priced and the right one for most of the workloads people actually have.
Neon vs Railway
Railway
Neon
price
$142.49/mo at the anchor
$189.76/mo always-on
free tier
no
yes
monthly at anchor
$142.49
$189.76 always-on
egress
$0.05/gb
$0.10/gb past 500gb
backups and pitr
not documented
included via storage history
scale to zero
not confirmed
yes — default 5 min
free tier
$1/mo credit
100 cu-hours, 0.5gb
switch fordevelopment, preview environments and spiky workloads — precisely not a database that runs all month.
pros
+genuine scale-to-zero with configurable autosuspend
+cheapest branching here — 10 free, then $1.50 each
+pitr included via storage history, not an add-on
+no monthly minimums since december 2025
cons
−most expensive real instance at an always-on workload
−azure projects must migrate by 5 october 2026
−acquired by databricks — roadmap direction unclear
#9 in managed postgres providers · billed per database operation, which makes it either the cheapest thing here or uncomparable — and for our anchor, uncomparable.
66/100
verdicta genuinely different pricing model that suits a lot of real applications and cannot be placed against a fixed always-on workload.
Prisma Postgres vs Railway
Railway
Prisma Postgres
price
$142.49/mo at the anchor
$129/mo base
free tier
no
yes
monthly at anchor
$142.49
n/a — operation-based
egress
$0.05/gb
$0.08-0.09/gib after free tier
backups and pitr
not documented
included, 7-30 days
scale to zero
not confirmed
implicit — no instance
free tier
$1/mo credit
100k operations, 500mb
switch forlow-traffic and spiky applications where a provisioned instance would sit idle.
pros
+no fixed cost when the database is idle
+free tier of 100,000 operations and fifty databases
+pooling and backups included with no add-ons
+storage allowance covers the anchor at the business tier
cons
−operation-based billing can't be compared on a compute anchor
−cost unpredictable if query volume is unpredictable
#11 in managed postgres providers · the free database isn't paused after thirty days — it's deleted.
60/100
verdictsensible per-second billing and tight app integration, sold from a page that won't show its own prices — and a free tier that destroys your data.
Render Postgres vs Railway
Railway
Render Postgres
price
$142.49/mo at the anchor
not readable
free tier
no
yes
monthly at anchor
$142.49
not readable
egress
$0.05/gb
not published
backups and pitr
not documented
exists, price unconfirmed
scale to zero
not confirmed
no
free tier
$1/mo credit
deleted after 30 days
switch forteams already running services on render who want the database in the same place.
pros
+billing prorated to the second
+tight integration with render's app hosting
+wide tier range from $6 to $6,200
+storage overage clearly stated at $0.30/gb
cons
−free database is deleted after 30 days, not paused
every tool on this page went through the same test as Railway — same tasks, same order, scored the same way. the comparison tables are the figures from that testing, not vendor spec sheets.