Self-hosting vs SaaS: we priced 10 apps. SaaS wins at small scale.
"Just self-host it" is common advice. But a server costs money every month it runs, and plenty of SaaS tools have free plans. So we priced 10 popular self-hosted apps against the SaaS they replace, at two usage levels each, using the vendors' own pricing pages (checked October 18–19, 2026). The short version: at small usage, SaaS is cheaper for 8 of the 10. At larger usage, the server is cheaper…
The article compares the costs of self-hosting popular applications versus using their SaaS counterparts, examining ten common tools. When usage is at a small scale, SaaS plans are typically cheaper in eight of the ten comparisons. However, as usage scales up, running the applications on a server becomes more cost-effective for all ten apps.
This is because free SaaS plans, such as Zapier, Better Stack, Mailchimp, GitHub Free, and Google Analytics, cost nothing, while services like 1Password Business, GitHub Team, and Dropbox Standard charge based on the number of users or tasks. A server's cost remains constant until the application requires a higher tier. The study also highlights that revenue-sharing models, like Substack and Ghost, have a tipping point where the SaaS model becomes more economical once subscription revenue surpasses a certain threshold.
Additionally, the article emphasizes that the costs of self-hosting, such as time spent on installation, maintenance, and support, as well as the need for a dedicated IPv4 address, further tilt the balance towards using SaaS solutions, especially when someone is available to manage the server. Overall, the recommendation is to opt for self-hosting when a specific need for per-seat or per-volume pricing arises, and there is someone to maintain the server.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
