ShipFast vs Makerkit vs Supastarter: SaaS Boilerplates 2026

Every SaaS boilerplate on the market promises the same thing: skip the boring parts and ship your product faster. And they all deliver on that promise to some degree. Authentication, billing, email, landing pages. The commodity features every SaaS needs are handled for you. Where they diverge is in the assumptions they make about what you are building, how your team works, and where your product is headed.

We have helped founders build on top of all three of these tools. Some had great experiences. Others spent weeks ripping out opinions that did not match their product. The difference almost always came down to picking the right boilerplate for the right use case, not picking the "best" one in some abstract sense.

ShipFast ($199 one-time), Makerkit ($299/month or $599 lifetime), and Supastarter ($299 one-time) are the three most popular options in 2026. They all use Next.js as the foundation. They all integrate Stripe. They all ship with landing pages and auth. But the architectural decisions underneath those shared features make them suited for very different types of products and teams. This article breaks down exactly where each one excels, where each one falls short, and which one you should actually pick based on what you are building.

Let us start with money, because the sticker price tells you less than you think.

ShipFast: $199 One-Time

ShipFast is the cheapest option upfront. You pay $199 once, get access to the full codebase, and you own it forever. Updates are included for the lifetime of the product. There is no tier system. You get everything. For solo founders and indie hackers shipping side projects or testing ideas, this price point is hard to argue with. The value-per-dollar ratio is excellent if ShipFast's opinions align with your project.

Makerkit: $299/Month or $599 Lifetime

Makerkit's pricing is the most complex of the three. The monthly plan gives you access to updates and support as long as you pay. The $599 lifetime option is the better deal if you plan to use it for more than two months, which you almost certainly will. You get access to the full codebase either way, but the monthly model means you are paying ongoing rent on your foundation code until you switch to lifetime. For B2B SaaS products that need multi-tenancy out of the box, the premium over ShipFast is justified. For simpler products, it is not.

Supastarter: $299 One-Time

Supastarter sits in the middle. $299 one-time with lifetime updates. No subscription, no tiers. You get the full Turborepo monorepo, all integrations, and the i18n system. The $100 premium over ShipFast buys you better TypeScript architecture, a monorepo setup, and internationalization support. If you are building a product that will eventually need multiple packages or apps in a shared repository, Supastarter pays for that difference quickly.

The hidden cost with all three is developer time spent customizing. As we break down in our guide to SaaS development costs, the boilerplate license is typically 1 to 3% of your total build cost. The other 97% is the product you build on top of it. So agonizing over $100 differences in license fees is a waste of time. Focus on which boilerplate requires the least customization for your specific use case.

All three boilerplates build on Next.js, but the surrounding architecture differs significantly. These differences compound as your project grows, so understanding them upfront saves you from painful migrations later.

ShipFast

ShipFast uses Next.js with the App Router, MongoDB (or Supabase as an alternative), Stripe for payments, Mailgun for email, and next-auth (now Auth.js) for authentication. The architecture is deliberately simple. Single repository, flat file structure, minimal abstraction layers. This is a feature, not a limitation. If you are a solo developer who thinks in terms of pages and API routes, ShipFast's codebase will feel immediately familiar. There is no learning curve beyond Next.js itself.

The MongoDB default is opinionated. If your product naturally fits a document model (user profiles, configurations, content), MongoDB works well. If you need complex relational queries, joins across tables, or strong data integrity constraints, you will want to swap to the Supabase/PostgreSQL option. That swap is doable but not seamless. Some of ShipFast's helper functions assume MongoDB's query patterns.

Makerkit

Makerkit supports both Next.js and Remix as frontend frameworks, paired with Supabase for the database and auth layer. The architecture is more structured than ShipFast, with clear separation between the application layer, the database layer, and the API layer. Makerkit's standout architectural feature is built-in multi-tenancy. Organizations, team members, roles, and permissions are first-class concepts in the data model and the UI. You do not bolt them on later.

The Remix option is interesting if you prefer server-first rendering and have strong opinions about data loading patterns. Most teams pick the Next.js version, but having the choice means Makerkit can accommodate a wider range of developer preferences. The codebase is larger and more abstract than ShipFast's, which means a steeper learning curve but more structure as your team grows beyond one or two developers.

Supastarter

Supastarter uses Next.js with Turborepo for monorepo management, Supabase or Prisma for the database layer, and has the strongest TypeScript story of the three. The Turborepo setup means your web app, marketing site, shared UI components, and backend utilities live in separate packages within a single repository. This is the architecture that larger engineering teams use, and having it from day one means you do not need to restructure your project when you hire your third or fourth developer.

Prisma support is a genuine differentiator. If you want to use a traditional relational database like PostgreSQL without the Supabase layer, Supastarter makes that straightforward. The type safety from Prisma combined with Supastarter's TypeScript-first approach means you catch data errors at compile time rather than in production. The i18n system is also baked into the architecture, not bolted on. If you are targeting international markets, this saves you weeks of retrofitting translations into every component.

For a deeper comparison of the frontend framework decisions behind these boilerplates, see our breakdown of Next.js vs React for startups.

The three pillars of every SaaS boilerplate are auth, billing, and email. All three handle the basics, but the depth of each implementation varies in ways that matter for different product types.

Authentication Systems

ShipFast uses next-auth (Auth.js) with support for email/password, magic link, and OAuth providers like Google and GitHub. The implementation is clean and well-documented. Adding new OAuth providers is straightforward because next-auth has a massive provider ecosystem. The limitation is that next-auth was designed for simpler auth flows. If you need SAML SSO for enterprise customers, multi-factor authentication, or organization-level auth policies, you will outgrow it.

Makerkit leverages Supabase Auth, which gives you email/password, magic link, phone OTP, and OAuth out of the box. Supabase Auth also includes row-level security policies that tie directly into the database layer, meaning your auth and data access are tightly coupled in a good way. For B2B products where you need to ensure that users only see their organization's data, this integration is a genuine time-saver. Supabase Auth also supports SAML SSO on higher-tier Supabase plans, which makes Makerkit viable for products selling to enterprise customers.

Supastarter offers both Supabase Auth and Clerk as options. Clerk is the more polished developer experience, with pre-built UI components for sign-in, sign-up, user profiles, and organization management. The trade-off is that Clerk is a paid service ($0.02/MAU after the free tier), so it adds an ongoing cost. If you choose the Supabase Auth path, you get the same capabilities as Makerkit. Having both options means you can pick based on whether you value DX and polish (Clerk) or cost and control (Supabase Auth).

Billing Integration Depth

All three integrate Stripe for subscription billing. ShipFast gives you checkout sessions, customer portal links, and webhook handlers for the core subscription lifecycle events: created, updated, deleted. It handles the happy path well. If your pricing is a simple monthly/annual plan with two or three tiers, ShipFast's billing works out of the box with minimal customization.

Makerkit goes deeper. You get per-seat billing logic, organization-level subscriptions (not user-level), and more granular webhook handling for edge cases like payment failures and subscription pauses. The billing is designed around the assumption that organizations, not individuals, are the paying entity. This matches how B2B SaaS products actually work.

Supastarter's billing integration is on par with ShipFast's in terms of depth but better structured in terms of code organization. The billing logic is isolated in its own package within the Turborepo, making it easier to test and modify without touching other parts of the application. Supastarter also supports Lemon Squeezy as an alternative to Stripe, which is useful for creators selling to international markets where Stripe's coverage is limited.

Email Templates and Transactional Messaging

ShipFast uses Mailgun and includes basic transactional email templates: welcome, password reset, and a few notification templates. The templates are functional but not particularly polished. You will likely redesign them before launch.

Makerkit uses Resend with React Email components. The templates are better designed and easier to customize because they are React components, not HTML strings. You get welcome emails, invitation emails for team members, and subscription notification emails.

Supastarter also uses React Email with Resend, with slightly more template variety than Makerkit. The templating system benefits from the monorepo structure because email components are shared across the application, reducing duplication. All three handle the basics. None of them include a full marketing email system. You will still need a tool like Loops, ConvertKit, or Mailchimp for drip campaigns and newsletters.

Beyond the core infrastructure features, the quality of the admin dashboard, the landing page design, and the overall developer experience determine how quickly you go from "boilerplate cloned" to "product launched."

Admin Dashboards

ShipFast includes a minimal admin panel. You get user management and basic subscription oversight. It is enough to manage an early-stage product but you will need to build out analytics, content management, and operational tools yourself. The admin panel is functional, not beautiful.

Makerkit's admin dashboard is the most complete of the three. Organization management, user management with role-based access, subscription management, and a super admin view for platform-level oversight. If you are building a B2B product where your support team needs to manage customer accounts, Makerkit saves you significant development time here.

Supastarter falls between the two. The admin panel is well-structured and type-safe but less feature-complete than Makerkit's. It covers user and subscription management with clean UI components. The advantage is that adding new admin features is straightforward because the monorepo architecture keeps admin code separate from customer-facing code.

Landing Page Quality

ShipFast wins here by a clear margin. Marc Lou built his brand on shipping fast and converting visitors, and ShipFast's landing page reflects that expertise. The hero section, social proof elements, pricing table, and FAQ are all optimized for conversion. You can customize the copy and ship a professional-looking marketing site in an afternoon. If you are a solo founder without design skills, this is genuinely valuable.

Makerkit's landing pages are competent but template-like. They get the job done but they do not feel distinctive. You will almost certainly want to redesign significant portions before launch, especially if your product is consumer-facing and needs to stand out visually.

Supastarter's landing pages are clean and well-structured, somewhere between ShipFast's polish and Makerkit's utility. The i18n integration means every landing page component supports multiple languages from the start, which is a unique advantage if you are targeting non-English-speaking markets.

Documentation and Community Support

ShipFast has extensive documentation and a large Discord community. Because it has the biggest user base, you will find more tutorials, guides, and community-built extensions. When you hit a problem, someone has probably solved it before. The documentation is practical and focused on getting things done quickly.

Makerkit's documentation is thorough and well-organized, with detailed guides for each feature and clear architecture explanations. The community is smaller but more focused on B2B use cases, which means the discussions are more relevant if that is what you are building. Support responsiveness is generally good.

Supastarter's documentation is excellent from a technical standpoint. It assumes a higher baseline of TypeScript and monorepo knowledge, which means less hand-holding but more depth on advanced topics. The community is the smallest of the three but growing. Update frequency is consistent, with regular releases that improve DX and add new integrations.

Code Quality and Architecture

This is where honest assessment matters most, because code quality determines your long-term velocity. ShipFast's code is pragmatic. It works, it is readable, and it does not over-engineer. But the lack of strict TypeScript usage and the simpler file structure can lead to disorganization as your codebase grows past a few dozen files. Tests are minimal.

Makerkit's code is more structured, with better separation of concerns and more consistent patterns. The multi-tenancy logic is well-implemented and the codebase scales better with team size. TypeScript usage is more rigorous than ShipFast's.

Supastarter has the strongest code quality of the three. Strict TypeScript throughout, clear package boundaries in the monorepo, consistent naming conventions, and better test coverage. If you care about code quality and plan to maintain this product for years, Supastarter's foundation gives you the least technical debt to pay down later.

After building on all three of these tools with different clients, here is our unfiltered take on which one to pick based on what you are actually building.

Pick ShipFast If...

You are a solo founder or indie hacker building a B2C product, a micro-SaaS, or a tool you want to validate quickly. You value speed over architecture. Your pricing model is simple (2 to 3 tiers, monthly/annual). You do not need multi-tenancy or team features. You are comfortable with MongoDB or willing to switch to the Supabase option. Your budget is tight and $199 is meaningfully different from $299 for you right now. You plan to ship a v1 in under a month.

ShipFast is also the right choice if you have launched SaaS products before and know exactly which parts of a boilerplate you will use and which parts you will rip out. Experienced builders can move incredibly fast with ShipFast because the codebase is small enough to understand in a day.

Pick Makerkit If...

You are building a B2B SaaS product where organizations, teams, roles, and permissions are core to the experience. Your customers will manage their own teams and expect per-seat billing. You need a super admin dashboard for your support team. You want the option to use Remix instead of Next.js. You are planning to sell to mid-market or enterprise customers who will ask about SSO and data isolation.

Makerkit's multi-tenancy system is its killer feature. Building proper multi-tenancy from scratch takes 3 to 6 weeks of senior developer time. Makerkit gives it to you on day one with the data model, the API layer, the UI components, and the billing logic all connected. If your product needs this, the $599 lifetime price is a bargain. If your product does not need multi-tenancy, you are paying for complexity you will never use.

Pick Supastarter If...

You have a small team (2 to 4 developers) and care about code quality, type safety, and long-term maintainability. You are building a product for international markets and need i18n from day one. You prefer a monorepo architecture and are comfortable with Turborepo. You want the flexibility to choose between Supabase and Prisma for your data layer. You plan to maintain and scale this product for years, not just ship an MVP and see what happens.

Supastarter is also the best choice for teams that have strong opinions about code architecture. The monorepo structure, strict TypeScript, and clean package boundaries mean the boilerplate fades into the background as you build. You spend less time fighting the framework's opinions and more time implementing your product.

The Comparison at a Glance

• Fastest MVP for solo makers: ShipFast. Nothing else gets you to launch as quickly for $199.
• Best for B2B with team management: Makerkit. The multi-tenancy alone is worth the premium.
• Best long-term code foundation: Supastarter. The Turborepo setup and TypeScript rigor pay dividends over time.
• Best landing pages: ShipFast. Marc Lou knows conversion optimization.
• Best documentation: ShipFast (quantity) vs Supastarter (depth). Makerkit falls in the middle.
• Best DX: Supastarter. The monorepo, strict types, and Prisma option create the smoothest development workflow.
• Best for international products: Supastarter. Built-in i18n is a significant advantage over retrofitting.

Boilerplates are excellent starting points for a specific class of SaaS products: standard multi-page web applications with auth, billing, and a dashboard. But not every product fits that mold, and forcing a boilerplate onto the wrong project creates more problems than it solves.

You should skip boilerplates entirely and go custom if your product has a non-standard architecture. Real-time collaborative tools (like Figma or Miro clones), marketplace platforms with multi-sided payment flows, products that rely heavily on WebSocket connections, or applications with complex data pipelines will all fight against a boilerplate's assumptions about request/response web apps.

You should also go custom if you have strict compliance requirements. HIPAA-compliant healthcare products, SOC 2 certified enterprise tools, and products handling financial data all need security architectures that boilerplates do not provide. Building on a boilerplate and then retrofitting compliance is more expensive than building with compliance in mind from the start.

Products that need deep integrations with specific platforms are another case where custom wins. If your product is an extension of Salesforce, a plugin for Shopify, or a tool built on top of a specific API, the integration layer is the product. A boilerplate's generic structure adds overhead without providing relevant scaffolding.

Finally, if you have a funded startup with $500K or more in seed capital and plan to hire a full engineering team within six months, start custom. A boilerplate made sense when you were a solo founder moving fast. With a team and capital, the time saved by a boilerplate is negligible compared to the time spent later refactoring around its opinions. Our guide to going from idea to launch covers the full process for teams ready to build custom.

For most early-stage founders, though, a boilerplate remains the pragmatic choice. The time you save on commodity features is time you spend talking to users, iterating on your core product, and finding product-market fit. That is what actually determines whether your SaaS succeeds, not whether you hand-rolled your authentication system.

If you are unsure which path fits your product, or if you have already picked a boilerplate and need help building on top of it, we work with founders at every stage of the SaaS development lifecycle. Book a free strategy call and we will help you figure out the fastest path from where you are now to a product your customers will pay for.