Comparison · measured 2026-05
QueryDen vs DBeaver CE
DBeaver Community Edition is the most-used open-source SQL client. It supports 90+ engines including NoSQL and is feature-deep — but the cost is a ~250 MB Eclipse-based installer, a JVM startup penalty, and a UI that inherits Eclipse's density. QueryDen is the opposite trade: fewer engines, native binaries, smaller footprint, and a focus on the relational + Supabase workflow.
Side-by-side
| QueryDen | DBeaver CE | |
|---|---|---|
| Engines supported | 6 (PG · MySQL · MariaDB · SQLite · Cockroach · Supabase) | 90+ (incl. NoSQL) |
| Installer size | ~11 MB | ~250 MB |
| Native binary | Yes (Tauri · Rust) | No (Eclipse · JVM) |
| Typical RAM | ~120 MB | ~600 MB |
| Cold start | Sub-second | 3–8 seconds |
| License | MIT | Apache 2.0 (CE) |
| Telemetry | Zero outbound calls | Opt-out |
| Credentials vault | AES-256-GCM + machine-locked | Master password (file-based) |
| AI assistant | BYO key (OpenAI · Anthropic · Google · Ollama) | Paid (DBeaver AI) |
| Visual EXPLAIN ANALYZE | Yes | Yes |
| Price (1 seat) | Free | Free (CE) · paid PRO available |
When DBeaver CE is the better choice
- You work across NoSQL, ClickHouse, MongoDB, Cassandra, or other engines QueryDen does not support.
- You need DBeaver-specific extensions or have an existing Eclipse plugin workflow.
- You manage 50+ saved connections and prefer DBeaver's hierarchical project structure.
When QueryDen is the better choice
- You want sub-second app launch and ~11 MB on disk, not a JVM-based installer.
- You work primarily with Postgres, MySQL, SQLite, CockroachDB, or Supabase and want a focused tool rather than a generalist.
- You care about credential security: QueryDen's vault is machine-locked, so a copied vault file is useless on another laptop.
- You want zero telemetry by default with no opt-out checkbox to remember.