Amba is the agent-native backend for mobile apps: one backend — identity, engagement, gamification, economy, social, analytics, and infrastructure — that an AI coding agent provisions and wires in about 30 seconds over a hosted MCP server. Convex is a reactive backend-as-a-service: a transactional document store, server-side TypeScript functions, realtime query subscriptions, end-to-end type safety, file storage, scheduling, and full-text + vector search — with a strong, deliberately agent-friendly developer experience. It’s a superb reactive foundation. What it doesn’t provide natively, as of mid-2026, is the mobile-engagement layer: hosted push, segments, streaks, content scheduling, an economy, and subscriptions — the surfaces a consumer app needs, which on Convex you build with functions and tables yourself. What is an agent-native backend?
Amba vs Convex, capability by capability.
● built-in · partial = limited / add-on · — not offered. “Agent installs the whole backend” means the MCP surface is an entire app backend, not read/write access to one product.
Which should you choose?
- You want push, segments, streaks, content, economy, and subscriptions as installed primitives — not features you build on reactive functions.
- Your app is engagement-shaped (loops, lifecycle campaigns, leagues, paywalls) and you’d rather an agent provision the whole backend than write the engagement code.
- You want a per-project isolated database and a mobile SDK family (iOS/Android/Flutter/React Native) out of the box.
- You want a reactive backend with end-to-end TypeScript type safety and live-updating queries as the core programming model.
- Your product is web-first or general-purpose and you’re comfortable composing engagement features from functions and tables.
- You value Convex’s reactivity model and transactional function DX above a pre-built mobile-engagement surface.
Both are agent-native — the difference is shape
Convex and Amba are both built for an AI agent to drive: Convex has a strong MCP/agent story for schema, functions, and data; Amba is agent-native end to end, with an agentic signup and 450+ MCP tools that provision the full backend. Neither “wins” on being agent-first. The real choice is what the agent installs: Convex hands the agent a reactive backend to build features on; Amba hands the agent the features themselves — push, segments, streaks, content, economy, subscriptions — as declarative primitives.
Mobile engagement: built vs. assembled
As of mid-2026, Convex has no native mobile push, segments, streaks, leaderboards, content scheduling, economy, or subscription handling — each is a set of tables, functions, and scheduled jobs you design. Amba exposes each as a primitive: hosted iOS/Android push with token management and segment targeting, JSON-rule segments re-evaluated on a schedule, streaks with grace and timezone handling, and a provider-neutral entitlements runtime (with RevenueCat/Superwall integrations). For a consumer mobile app, that’s the bulk of the backend — built on Amba, assembled on Convex.
Reactivity vs. mobile read/write shape
Convex’s reactive query model — live-updating subscriptions with end-to-end types — is its signature strength, especially for collaborative and web-first UIs. Amba’s collections are typed with built-in vector search and per-user isolation by default, optimized for the read/write patterns of mobile consumer apps and paired with native SDKs. If live reactivity is your core model, Convex is the better fit; if mobile engagement surfaces wired fast is the goal, Amba is.
Where does Convex beat Amba?
Convex has the clear edge on its reactive programming model, end-to-end TypeScript type safety, transactional function DX, and general-purpose/web-first flexibility — and it has a real agent-native story of its own. If you want a reactive backend foundation with first-rate TypeScript ergonomics, Convex is excellent; you’ll just add push, segments, streaks, and subscriptions around it.
Moving from Convex to Amba
Teams that like Convex’s reactive core sometimes keep it for that and add Amba for the mobile-engagement surface — push, segments, streaks, economy, subscriptions — rather than rebuilding those on functions. Amba’s isolated database lets the two coexist during a gradual move.
Pricing context: Convex: Free (Starter) tier, then a usage-based Professional plan and Enterprise. Amba: Free (1,000 MAU), Pro $20/mo per project, Scale $200/mo. Verify current Convex figures on their pricing page.
Amba vs Convex — FAQ
Is Convex agent-first like Amba?
Both are. Convex has a strong agent/MCP developer story; Amba is agent-native end to end with an agentic signup and 450+ MCP tools. The difference isn’t whether an agent can drive them — it’s what the agent installs: Convex gives a reactive backend to build on, Amba gives the mobile-engagement features pre-built.
Does Convex have native mobile push notifications?
No — as of mid-2026, Convex has no native push product; you send push by calling FCM/APNs from a Convex function you write and operate. Amba includes hosted iOS + Android push with scheduling, dead-token eviction, and segment targeting.
Convex vs Amba — which should I use?
Choose Convex for a reactive, end-to-end-typed backend as your core programming model, especially web-first. Choose Amba when the app is mobile and engagement-shaped (streaks, leagues, content, economy, subscriptions) and you want those installed rather than built. Some teams use Convex for reactive data and Amba for the engagement surface.
Can Amba do vector search like Convex?
Yes. Amba’s collections include built-in vector columns and a findNearest query for semantic search, scoped per user by default, with no separate vector vendor to provision.
Sources for this comparison
- Convex pricing as of 2026-06
- Convex MCP server docs as of 2026-06
- Convex components (incl. push) as of 2026-06
Competitor pricing verified June 2026. Enterprise figures are third-party estimates.