Comparison: where GoFastr sits

GoFastr is a full-stack Go framework: server-rendered screens, a REST API, MCP tools, and migrations, written as plain Go against framework/ and framework/ui/, which sit on stdlib-first primitives in core/ and core-ui/. An optional gofastr.yml app spec scaffolds a whole app, UI and API with scoped permissions, as Go you read, commit, and own. Several tools cover parts of that job; no Go tool we know of covers all of it. This page maps the neighbours honestly, including the ways they are better, so you can pick the right tool, which is sometimes not this one.

A note on "MCP tools from your schema": that was a differentiator in early 2025 and is table stakes now: Supabase ships an MCP server, PocketBase has community MCP servers, FastAPI has FastAPI-MCP. GoFastr generates MCP tools from entities too (on top of core/mcp, which any GoFastr app can use directly), but that's supporting evidence, not the main point of comparison here. What's different is the codegen pipeline that generates the whole stack and hands you the code to own.

vs PocketBase

What PocketBase is: a runtime BaaS. One prebuilt binary with embedded SQLite, an admin dashboard, auth, files, and realtime. You configure collections at runtime through the dashboard; you extend it by writing hooks (Go or JS) that run inside PocketBase's lifecycle.

The difference in kind: PocketBase is a host you configure. GoFastr is Go source you own, written by hand against the framework or scaffolded by the optional app spec as a flat package main (main.go, app.go, screens_register.go + screen_*.go, entities/). You commit it, diff it in code review, debug it with a debugger, and refactor it like any other package. There's no runtime schema store and no canonical file you have to keep living inside: you generate once, then edit the Go directly, and you can delete the app spec once the code is yours. If you want to drop below the framework, you write net/http. There's no plugin API to route around.

Choose PocketBase when you want a backend in five minutes, the admin dashboard is the product, and you're happy working inside its extension points. It's been in production longer, across more projects, and has a larger community. Choose GoFastr when the output needs to be a Go codebase your team (or your agents) can read and change directly, and you want the server-rendered UI generated from the same schema as the API.

vs Encore.go

What Encore is: a Go backend framework where infrastructure (Pub/Sub, cron, secrets, databases) is declared in code and provisioned by Encore's tooling, with tracing and a dashboard. It's commercially backed and more mature.

The difference in kind: Encore's features depend on its platform: its build system, its cloud or self-hosted runtime, its dashboard. GoFastr has no platform: go build emits a single static binary that runs anywhere a binary runs, and it sends no telemetry. The trade-off is real in both directions: Encore sets up infrastructure and distributed tracing for you; GoFastr doesn't couple you to a platform and keeps a plain go.mod.

Also a scope difference: Encore is backend-first; GoFastr generates the server-rendered UI (screens, nav, islands) from the same app spec as the API. Choose Encore when you want managed infrastructure and a mature toolchain. Choose GoFastr when you want nothing between your binary and your VPS.

vs Wasp

What Wasp is: the closest thing to the same approach. A main.wasp declaration compiles to a full-stack app (auth, CRUD, jobs, email), and "the framework for the AI era" is literally their tagline. Wasp is more mature, has a team, a community, and production users.

The difference in kind: the generator model, then the runtime model. Wasp (like Encore and Amplify) is a canonical-declaration tool: main.wasp is the program; you live in it and regenerate from it, and the emitted code belongs to the tool, not to you to hand-edit. GoFastr scaffolds once: the app generator emits idiomatic Go you then own and edit directly; generate is one-shot and refuses to overwrite an existing project (pass --force to regenerate), and you can delete the app spec entirely once the code is yours. The trade-off is real: a canonical declaration promises "no drift" because there's one source; GoFastr's approach trades that for a plain Go codebase with no second language to grow into. There's also a runtime difference: Wasp targets JS/TS, React SPA + Node + Prisma, while GoFastr is the Go counterpart: SSR-first HTML with island hydration instead of a client-side React app, one static binary instead of a Node deployment, database/sql instead of an ORM. If you're a TypeScript shop, Wasp is the obvious pick. If you want the same idea in Go, with Go's deployment story, compile-time guarantees, and code you own, that's what GoFastr is for.

vs hand-rolled Gin/Echo + sqlc

What hand-rolling is: the Go default, and often the right call: maximal control, zero framework risk, every line auditable.

What you write yourself: the glue. Per-entity CRUD handlers, request validation, filtering/sorting/pagination math, batch endpoints, cursor paging, OpenAPI annotations kept in sync by hand, an MCP server if agents need tools, migrations, per-user scoping enforced in every query, RBAC checks in every handler, and any admin/UI layer. One entity declaration in framework/entity generates that glue, and because the output is plain Go on disk, dropping the framework costs the same either way: delete the declaration, keep the code, write net/http.

Choose hand-rolling when the domain is small, the endpoints are few, or the requirements are unusual enough that generated CRUD is noise. Choose GoFastr when the app is CRUD-heavy and the glue would dominate the diff.

What GoFastr does not have (read before adopting)

  • It's v0.x. Breaking changes happen between releases; pin a version. The v1.0.0 tag will mark the stability promise.
  • No external production adopters yet. The pipeline is proven by the repo's own tooling, docs site, and the examples/meridian flagship, not by someone else's production traffic. This is a young framework and says so.
  • Solo maintainer. Bus factor of one. Issues get read; SLAs don't exist.
  • SQLite and Postgres only. No MySQL, no MongoDB.
  • No hosted anything. No cloud, no dashboard-as-a-service, no telemetry. That's deliberate, but if you want Encore's or Supabase's managed experience, this isn't it.
  • Small community. The docs are extensive and embedded in the binary (gofastr docs), but you won't find a thousand Stack Overflow answers.

If those trade-offs are disqualifying for your context, the tools above are good. Use them. If they're acceptable for a v0.x bet on Go you own, start with the app spec tutorial.

Common mistakes

  • Evaluating GoFastr as a BaaS. There's no runtime collection editor; the app spec is a compile-time scaffold input, not a live schema store. And it isn't something you keep regenerating from either. Once it scaffolds the Go, that Go is what you edit and redeploy directly (you can delete the app spec).
  • Assuming MCP support is the differentiator. It isn't anymore; most schema-bearing platforms expose MCP. Compare the codegen pipeline and the fact that you own the output instead.
  • Comparing maturity 1:1. Every alternative on this page is more mature. The honest pitch is the difference above plus the trade-offs above, not feature parity.