At a glance
A single 0 to 100 composite that rolls the project’s most important capacity, performance, error and durability signals into one number a platform lead can glance at. It answers “is my Supabase project broadly healthy right now, or is something pulling it down?” without forcing anyone to read a dozen gauges. The score is deliberately conservative: any one component in the red drags the whole number down, so a low score always means at least one real problem, never a statistical artefact. Below 70 the project has a material issue that warrants someone looking now.
Calculation
The health score is a roll-up, not a primary measurement. The connector collects each component card’s current reading, scores it 0 to 100 against that metric’s own healthy band, then combines the component scores into the headline. The components and the direction that hurts the score:
The blend is intentionally biased toward the worst component rather than a flat average. A flat mean would let four green signals mask one red one, producing a comfortable-looking 80 while the project is actually losing data or refusing connections. Instead, the weakest component disproportionately pulls the headline down, so a red sub-signal cannot hide. This is why the score can sit at 62 even when six of seven components are healthy: the seventh (say, disk usage at 94%) is a genuine, imminent problem.
Because it is a composite, the score does not tell you what is wrong on its own; it tells you that something is wrong and how severe. The fix is always to open the component cards listed under Sibling cards and find the one in the red.
Worked example
A platform team owns a Supabase Pro project behind a retail storefront. The health score reading is taken on 22 Apr 26 at 14:05 BST during an afternoon promotion. The headline reads 64 (red), down from a 7-day baseline of 91. Opening the component breakdown:
The story is immediate: pool saturation at 93% is the dominant drag. The promotion has driven a traffic burst, the Supavisor pool is nearly exhausted on the Pro tier’s connection cap, and the queued connections are also nudging the error rate and p95 into amber. The composite of 64 reflects the worst-of bias: one red component plus two ambers is enough to drop the headline 27 points below baseline.
- The score is a starting point, not a diagnosis. A 64 tells you to act and how urgently; the component breakdown tells you what to fix. Never act on the composite alone.
- One red beats four greens. The worst-of bias is the point. If the score were a flat average, this project would have read 80 and nobody would have looked, while the pool quietly ran out of connections.
- Watch the 7-day trend, not just the live value. A score of 78 that has been falling 2 points a day for a week is a slow leak (often disk creeping up or a connection leak); a 78 that dropped from 91 an hour ago is an acute event. The trend line distinguishes the two.
Sibling cards
Reconciling against the source
Where to confirm this in Supabase’s own tooling:Supabase has no single “health score” of its own, so the way to reconcile this card is to verify each component against native tooling: Supabase Studio → Reports → Database charts cache hit rate, connections, disk and query latency.Why our number may legitimately differ from a manual tally:pg_stat_databaseandpg_stat_activityin the SQL Editor confirm cache hit rate, error counts and connection counts. Project Settings → Database → Backups shows the most recent backup timestamp and PITR window. Supabase status page confirms whether any platform-wide incident is contributing.
Cross-connector reconciliation:
Known limitations / FAQs
The score is 64 but every individual chart looks fine to me. What gives? At least one component is in its red band; the composite cannot read low without one. Open the component breakdown or the sibling cards and look for the metric whose own gauge is amber or red. The most common culprits are pool saturation during a burst and disk usage creeping toward the tier cap, both of which are easy to overlook on a busy dashboard. Why not just average the components? A weighted-worst approach feels harsh. Because a flat average lets four healthy signals mask one failing one. A project that is silently losing connections or about to hit read-only disk would average out to a comfortable 80 and nobody would investigate. The worst-of bias guarantees that a real problem always surfaces as a low score, which is the entire point of a single executive number. Does Supabase publish its own health score I can compare against? No. Supabase exposes the raw component metrics in Studio Reports and via Postgres system views, but there is no native composite. This card is a Vortex IQ roll-up, so the right way to reconcile it is component by component against native tooling, not against a single Supabase figure. My project has no read replicas. Does that hurt the score? No. When the project has no replicas, the replication-lag component is omitted from the blend rather than scored as zero. You are not penalised for not buying a paid feature you do not need. The component reappears automatically if you later add a replica. How quickly does the score recover after I fix the underlying problem? Usually within one to two refresh cycles. Each component has its own window, so a saturation event that clears instantly may still show for a single cycle while the rolling reading catches up. TheRT/7D trend line is the better recovery indicator than the live value alone.
Can I change what counts as “healthy” for my workload?
Yes. Every component threshold is configurable per profile in the Alert Rules tab. An analytics-heavy project that legitimately runs hotter on disk or latency can relax those bands so the composite reflects its real baseline rather than the generic OLTP default. Tune deliberately, though: relaxing a threshold to silence a red is how a real problem gets hidden.
Should I alert on the score itself or on the components?
Alert on both, for different audiences. The score below 70 is the right page for an on-call platform lead who needs a single “something is wrong” signal. The component alerts (pool, disk, error rate) are the right pages for the engineer who needs to act, because they name the problem directly. The score is the executive lens; the components are the operational lens.