[Illniyar]

Am I missing something in the pricing or is the Storage costs very unappealing. For anything with a usage skewed towards high ratio of storage to usage, the costs aren't competitive.

2.5$ per GB in "Scalar" and 1.5$ per GB in "Scalar PRO" compared to 0.11$ RDS for General purpose (or 0.125$ for provisioned + the IOPS you use, double that for multi-az), Supabase at 0.125$, Firebase at 0.1725$,DynamoDB at 0.25$, MongoDB Atlas serverless at 0.25$, cockroachDB serverless at 0.5$ per GB, FaunaDB at 1$ per GB. (Neon says it's 0.000164 per GiB, but somethings seems off, it's not at the same scale, so I'm guessing there's a catch here)

[re-thc]

> Am I missing something in the pricing or is the Storage costs very unappealing

Yes, there's no comparison on the IOPs or anything else and what counts as storage. They all count slightly differently and so unless you account for it all it's a bit moot.

AWS alone has different tiers of storage from HDD to NVME ssd. The pricing varies greatly.

RDS will literally count anything including temporary files as usage of storage. Planetscale claims not to.

[mebcitto]

Neon price is listed as per hour, instead of per month like the others :)

While you're not necessarily missing something, it's worth pointing out that usually storage costs don't dominate the bill, the compute costs are usually higher. But with the PlanetScale storage price being more then 10x the price of the other, it's definitely something to keep in mind, and it can dominate the bill.