I wish Couchbase were more helpful practically than they try to present themselves theoretically. Even if their products weren't so expensive the impedance mismatch between their version of CouchDB's sync APIs and their own APIs seems to increase by the year, and is pretty noticeable in how different it works from a PouchDB standpoint and how easy it is to break sync. (Impedance mismatches in allowable database names and _id keys are huge on their own that have massive repercussions in application design.)
Even CouchDB is not CouchDB anymore with impedance mismatches of its own between versions. On the one hand it's good that Cloudant upstreamed a lot of their cluster management tools directly into Apache CouchDB 2+ (even as they made their PaaS offering IBM Cloud only [or whatever it's name of the month is]), but huge architectural changes below the covers in CouchDB 3+ start to present their own sync issues akin to but distinct from Couchbase's (and even some of Cloudant's as they seem [?] to be diverging again into their own 2+ fork after all that work upstreaming stuff?).
More than ever, Azure CosmosDB's focus on bare minimum MongoDB capability and not supporting anything like CouchDB sync, despite having close the same raw ingredients (Cosmos' change feed looks a lot more like Couch's, but is just missing a couple subtle things to make it directly and immediately useful for Couch replication) seems like a "CouchDB is dead and not worth supporting" signal from Microsoft.
Unfortunately, I think PouchDB <=> CouchDB replication has past the "mature" point to the "decrepit" and "falling apart" stage, maybe to the point of "evolutionary dead end" if I'm feeling strongly pessimistic enough, and I've been for years trying to figure what to replace it with.