Cloud Pricing - MAU?



My honest thought is that if free was 3000 MAU and standard for 30$ was 10000 MAU then it’d make sense.

(EDIT from the future: I guess the standard 10000 concurrent for 30$ is pretty good :slight_smile: )


OMG just saw a comment by @samk above about discontinuation of developer edition which I hadn’t realised until just now. My solution to the silly Cloud pricing was to host a developer edition in Azure for $30 a month or less (or AWS for free for a year) and have as many users as I want as long as actual usage was low (which it will be). If things take off then I would get a beefier Azure back end or hopefully Realm Cloud would be more realistic by then. That way I could carry on development knowing that there was always a way forward.

Now that Realm have cut off the developer edition it is suddenly a dead end for me. There is no way I can make an app-market app pay the MAU rates that the Cloud Realm wants at the moment, and with no indication that that will change in the near future there is little point in continuing development with Ream. And things had just suddenly got so much better with the release of partial sync - only to be cruelly whisked away.

Don’t get me wrong - I would happily pay $30 a month if I could service enough users to make it pay. But unfortunately that is a LOT of users. Please please please, switch to a bandwidth or transaction pricing model quickly before all the little guys are forced to go elsewhere.


I am also seeing the dead end for “little ones” - with all the right realm has to make their own pricing. I contacted sales as @Jolson32 recommended with my little use case of little but growing users. Will let you know if a custom pricing made sense for me for a classical freemium app. For 100% free apps I think you can just forget it if you don’t wanna make loss - hopefully for small usage cases there will be solutions :slight_smile:


its a shame that pricing for small users seems like an afterthought with “custom” pricing the only viable option. like others have said it would be much nicer (and expected) to see a reasonable free tier based on usage that can scale with pay-as-you-go. practically every other BaaS has some sort of usage based pricing, this is unusable for small apps especially running the freemium model, a shame for such a great product.


Put me down as another person confused about this pricing… “Come ask sales” for custom pricing isn’t acceptable in my opinion as the default requirement for nearly everyone wanting this service. We (the builders of new products) need full transparency on pricing so we can see opportunities to build products using Realm.

Until this happens, I’m putting any breaks on continued development with Realm. And it’s also hard to imagine I’ll continue to recommend Realm to other interested developers. Which makes me so sad, because I’ve loved the tech for a few years now.


I just noticed there is a shift from monthly active users to monthly active devices. what exactly is the difference between them?


It just became more expensive for us. If a user logs out of one device and logs in on another device, they now count twice.

If they log out and login on the same device they count once.

What is an Monthly Active Device (MADs)?

A monthly active Device (MAD) is defined as a unique device (mobile, device, IoT, User) who authenticates against the Realm Cloud or the Realm Platform during a 30 day period. While an application may have a device base of 100,000 device, MADs would only encompass the subset of devices who have accessed the application within the last 30 days.


whoever is in charge of pricing must work for firebase, only explanation for such an absurd pricing scheme


yeah, since today its really MAD … still realm has their right to charge whatever they want for their solution and if we look at the status before, the professional self-hosted solution was also infeasible for most freemium apps.
The developer edition, however was free but not feature rich enough for most freemium apps. So the pricing is not a big surprise, but still a disappointed hope for many who thought the cloud would have actually scalable pricing. But maybe that is coming in the future wen the whole ecosystem is also economically stable.


When we were desktop developers we charged users per device. That was the norm.

Now we are cloud developers we charge our users by usage. That’s the norm. It’s no longer normal to charge per device.

Our users expect to be charged by usage. It is more difficult for us to recover our cloud costs when those costs are based on criteria different from market expectations.


Well I guess MAD answers this question:

Does MAU even mean registered user, or execution on different device? Does a user who registers twice count as two users?

One registered user who logs in from two phones counts as two devices.

Well, as I said, I like Realm, but the pricing model is strange. I cannot think of any situation in which I could recommend’s Sync Platform - neither for free, nor for standard, nor for self-hosted - as there are still too many unknowns, and the current available pricing model already scales in a way that I don’t know in what case it results in an affordable and reasonable scenario.

Then again, I’m not really a business nor a start-up, so my opinion is just my opinion!
It could work. I’ve definitely not seen such a pricing scheme elsewhere.

The tricky thing is that Realm should not forget one thing: it is going head-to-head against the Firebase Cloud Firestore.

As for one final free option, it could be possible to stick with Realm Java 4.4.0 with a ROS 2.8.0 developer edition? But that’s only an option of course if you don’t really want a website from your Realm data (and you don’t have an iOS/Swift project (unless you maintain your own fork of RealmSwift)


I want to thank all of you for your invaluable feedback. As we are launching our new cloud offering and have been in Beta this feedback has been great. I am hoping to make some adjustments to our cloud offering with regards to pricing in the near future. We are not Google and do not own our own cloud, but we will try and meet your needs where we can. Please stay tuned and always feel free to reach me personally at [email protected].


@Jolson32 - I look forward to reading a possible revised pricing scheme.

However, your comment leads me to believe that you have missed a key element across the whole conversation - and that is the removal of ROS Developer edition.

Self hosting ROS Developer edition is easy to do, is cheap to do, is reliable and has a feature set that is genuinely good enough (I always through the feature difference between editions was well set).

For many developers seeking to provide a freemium model, or, developers with low use apps, or, developers seeking to store data they do now want on a shared platform the Realm Object Server was a fantastic offering. It allowed us to experiment and gamble on the strange ideas we thought of while in the shower.

For me and many others, removing ROS Developer Edition is the real disappointment.

If during your “kill off developer” deliberations you had asked the community about funding a low cost developer edition I am pretty sure many people would have given it a good consideration. I know I would have.

Please have a think about this while you deliberate on prices.


@Jolson32 There are many ways to make money from realm and you should do but please, do not cut the branch your are siting on.

Look for a business solution (pricing) the both sides (realm / developers) win, otherwise realm will have really hard times.


During the Beta Period for Realm’s new cloud offering we shared our initial pricing model for the Cloud, and received a lot of great feedback, both where it works well and where it wouldn’t. As part of launching the GA version of our Cloud solution, we listened and incorporated your feedback; check out the updated pricing for both our Cloud and self-hosted options at We still have custom options available, so if you have a unique case that does not fit our standard model, or believe you have a unique opportunity, please contact us at [email protected]. Thanks for using Realm and being a Realm supporter.


There has been an update to our pricing: Please visit


did you guys not read any of the feedback about a free tier? dont think the solution is abolishing the free tier and only offering a 30-day free trial…while the $30/mo plan is priced much better this is still unusable for many free/freemium apps (at least for non-professional devs like myself)


It took me a week to figure out in what scenario the original MAD plan would have worked:

  • in the case of applications where there is a service provided for a monthly fee of around ~6 EUR per month, with an active user base. In that case, 100 users getting 30$, or 10000 users gettings 3000$ is no real issue.

However, for that you’d need an established business that provides a service with a subscription plan as well; which is not something the mobile market really has (freemium mobile apps really don’t work that way). It’s more-so for web apps, with possible mobile apps as well. But it is web-app-first (or desktop-app-based with mobile extension apps).

It’d have been a strange pricing model for something that primarily targets the mobile market, especially considering a lack of official Electron binding at this time.

The new pricing plan looks much more reasonable for a mobile market, $30 monthly fee / a max of 10000 simultaneous users with failover is definitely affordable, compared to what it’d cost to host something on Heroku for something similar.

Lots of unknown factors (like self-hosted “starts at”) were removed, glad to see numbers for that too.

Sad to see the free cloud tier go - although it would have primarily suited only for “development preview” anyways than for any real app (although it’s better than a timed trial for that!). The website should be updated though, it says there is a free tier on the Sunset page:

I do pay more for the JetBrains tooling pack per month. $30 per month for 10000 users is affordable, possibly even if assuming linear price scaling.

The only sad consequence (aside from the lack of a “completely free tier”) is that the ROS 2.x branch had a “free-of-charge” self-hosted version that no longer exists. I personally don’t have hard feelings about this, although it is a bummer for those that relied on it. Let’s hope the new model stays for longer, shall we?

(edit from the future: this edit is just an info dump for )



I think the new pricing model is much more reasonable for low-income developers. 30/month is not a low price, but it is feasible.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to show on the web what the prices are if you exceed 10000 users connected. For example, $5 per 3000 users?

Finally, at the beginning of the beta, it was indicated that those of us who are helping with the testing would have a discount on the final prices. Right?