Amazon DynamoDB is a cloud-native, NoSQL, serverless database service.
$0
capacity unit per hour
Azure SQL Database
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Azure SQL Database is Microsoft's relational database as a service (DBaaS).
$0.50
Per Hour
Pricing
Amazon DynamoDB
Azure SQL Database
Editions & Modules
Provisioned - Read Operation
$0.00013
capacity unit per hour
Provisioned - Write Operation
$0.00065
capacity unit per hour
Provisioned - Global Tables
$0.000975
per Read Capacity
On-Demand Streams
$0.02
per 100,000 read operations
Provisioned - Streams
$0.02
per 100,000 read operations
On-Demand Data Requests Outside AWS Regions
$0.09
per GB
Provisioned - Data Requests Outside AWS Regions
$0.09
per GB
On-Demand Snapshot
$0.10
per GB per month
Provisioned - Snapshot
$0.10
per GB per month
On-Demand Restoring a Backup
$0.15
per GB
Provisioned - Restoring a Backup
$0.15
per GB
On-Demand Point-in-Time Recovery
$0.20
per GB per month
Provisioned - Point-in-Time Recovery
$0.20
per GB per month
On-Demand Read Operation
$0.25
per million requests
On-Demand Data Stored
$0.25
per GB per month
Provisioned - Data Stored
$0.25
per GB per month
On-Demand - Write Operation
$1.25
per million requests
On-Demand Global Tables
$1.875
per million write operations replicated
2 vCORE
$0.5044
Per Hour
6 vCORE
$1.5131
Per Hour
10 vCORE
$2.52
Per Hour
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon DynamoDB
Azure SQL Database
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon DynamoDB
Azure SQL Database
Considered Both Products
Amazon DynamoDB
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
For our use case, we needed a noSQL that would work with AWS Lambdas of specific parts of the internal web applications. We optimized billing and uses , diversified databases for various parts; so it’s not very expensive.
Other all SQL Databases are based on the traditional Schema Structure and Amazon DynamoDB is NoSQL so you don't need to generate the SQL Schemas. You can store the data whatever you want, whenever you want. You can store data in structured or non-structured any way you want. If …
Performance at high scales is better and the cost at high scales is less. If one has a ton of data generated and has to work their way through it, I think Amazon DynamoDB should the go-to database. There are no compromises when it comes to performance at a huge scale. With any …
MongoDB was basically the first approach we used but because there was concern that some data may miss we were reluctant to use it. Oracle Database and SQL Server was our second approach but it was throttling so in last we tested out Amazon DynamoDB and it met our requirement.
The Amazon Web Services managed Amazon DynamoDB has excellent features which makes it stand out from all the others in market right now. The management ease it offers is far superior than its competitors and on top of that the on-demand pricing model is an advantage which works …
MongoDB has some performance issues and can get corrupted from time to time and has needed to be rebuilt. We have not had that experience while using DynamoDB.
Amazon DynamoDB supports larger throughput, with better SLA, also, we are considering unstructured data, so Amazon DynamoDB has become the final decision
The only thing that can be compared to DynamoDB from the selected services can be Aurora. It is just that we use Aurora for High-Performance requirements as it can be 6 times faster than normal RDS DB. Both of them have served as well in the required scenario and we are very …
DynamoDB offers strong consistency, more fine-grained control over read and write capacities, and integrates seamlessly with other AWS services. DynamoDB is designed for horizontal scalability and high throughput, making it a better choice for applications with rapidly changing …
AWS handles hardware provisioning, data recovery, fault tolerance, patching, and database upgrades for DynamoDB since it is a fully managed database service. Businesses can then concentrate on other aspects of their operations, including product development or customer service, …
The automation is much more subtle and it performs way better for internet-scale applications. No matter the number of connections, the performance doesn't dip even a bit.
DynamoDB's scalability is more automated and effortless, making it easier to handle rapid growth. Other tools require more manual configuration while DynamoDB simplifies database administration. Also, DynamoDB provides strong consistency while other tools like MongoDB and …
We are always assembling our solutions on AWS and DynamoDB is a better fit for us because of its simplicity. DynamoDB has its ow sets of triggers that make this an integrated solution on AWS. Besides, we wanted to use a key-value solution for our simple edge DB, and we didn't …
DynamoDB is slightly different than both the above-stated DBs, with RDS being a relational database and Redshift being a data warehouse used for heavier jobs and analytics and vast data. DynamoDB lies in between both, with it being a no SQL base that can relatively store …
Lesser flexibility but better performance, and more predictable development support are the key points where Amazon DynamoDB comes out on top, when compared to MongoDB.
Mongo services are outside of our Vpc and are on a different network. Since most of our infra is on AWS, dynamo by AWS was a natural choice. Most of our engineers are familiar with AWS sdk and the console so that brought in a much smaller learning curve for our engineering team
The simplicity and great features and good support of Microsoft as well as the more reasonable flexible price than other competitors is one of the important reasons for choosing it.
Oracle database is "the" serious database. There really is no competition in that field. SQL Database would be a serious competitor through the ease of implementation and the "no maintenance," but since it's too expensive for "normal" use (medium to small applications), it just …
It is very easy to setup SQL database on Azure. one can always refer to their documentation for best practices. It is highly available and scalable. It is cheaper than its alternatives and provide better performance than others. As we are using many other services of Azure for …
Director, eCommerce Analytics and Digital Marketing
Chose Azure SQL Database
The Azure SQL Database, compared to our on premise SQL server installation, is much easier to use in terms of seeing database diagnostics. There is a whole visualization platform that comes with the tool that will allow your database administrator to see what jobs are tying up …
Amazon's RDS offering is actually very good and is used in other parts of the company, we just have a lot of Azure experience so wanted to leverage that.
Being able to manage our databases in the cloud, scale quickly, and only require access to VMs made choosing Azure a no-brainer over a traditional SQL Server installation/integration. We don't have the budget or resources to integrate and maintain servers on our own, so using …
I would say MySQL in either Aurora or MariaDB form come close however, Azure SQL Database has a more streamlined approach to delivering a consistent programmability model, supported drivers and feature set.
Azure SQL Database T-SQL is advantageous and more complete than SQL …
Azure owned by Microsoft who owned SQL Server, so provided a variety of tools for easy migration/transition and from on-premises to the cloud; and management. I recommend using Azure for any on-prem SQL server databases.
Azure SQL is a clear upgrade to SQL Server 2012 and pretty much has the advantage with all the extra features that it has. Security, queries, exporting tables, T-SQL has all improved. Transitioning 18+ years of an in-house database to the cloud was a struggle, but for the …
We moved away from Oracle and NoSQL because we had been so reliant on them for the last 25 years, the pricing was too much and we were looking for a way to cut the cord. Snowflake is just too up in the air, feels like it is soon to be just another line item to add to your Azure …
Amazon Relational Database Service is the other obvious competitor. We were already in Azure, so it's not a serious contender for our business due to that bias already, but I do personally find the marketing and documentation of RDS more intimidating to sort through.
Comparing with Amazon Aurora: Azure SQL DB is 100% compatible with SQL Server and Aurora is compatible with MySQL and PostGreSQL. Because of if, SQL DB suits large enterprises with hundreds of databases better. Comparing with Oracle: the main issue is that Oracle will try to …
It stacks up in different ways, for the most part, I think Microsoft is doing a really good job versus the competition. They basically started database type products from the beginning. I've always been excited about updates and can see their progress over time. Get's me really …
It's more easy to shift and get all the services up in no time, provide best up time and monitoring easily so you can get the best services which take care of themselves. It's a better fitting for a large company size.
As we were early adopters with Azure and landed on the Azure PaaS (Platform as a Service), it made sense to use databases that were on the same platform as the application to save on costs. Also, we were impressed with the simplicity of Azure SQL. From a management perspective …
It is useful use-case by use-case. For our use case, it was the best and easiest option for the integration as well as development side. It is serverless so no need of deployment and maintenance hustle. It is easy to scale up due to the same functionality. Supports AWS Security features and just a click away for enabling it so security is good.
Your upcoming app can be built faster on a fully managed SQL database and can be moved into Azure with a few to no application code changes. Flexible and responsive server less computing and Hyperscale storage can cope with your changing requirements and one of the main benefits is the reduction in costs, which is noticeable.
Scalability is #1: if it used to be an almost no-win endeavour to try to modernize your server or migrate to other hardware, with Azure SQL Database it becomes a press of a button.
All the tools simply work after you are on Azure SQL Database.
The applications do not need changes in order to start using Azure SQL Database.
Hybrid Cloud scenarios will work.
Clustering and failover - already there.
You can start monitoring the use and extract performance insights in a new way in Azure.
A little slow on processing complex or large Views. We use a lot of Views to feed our BI system, and the processing time could see some improvement, IMHO.
Additional monitoring components would be nice too, automating some built in performance measurement tools would be a nice feature.
Price can always be improved as well. It’s not bad, but room for improvement.
It's core to our business, we couldn't survive without it. We use it to drive everything from FTP logins to processing stories and delivering them to clients. It's reliable and easy to query from all of our pipeline services. Integration with things like AWS Lambda makes it easy to trigger events and run code whenever something changes in the database.
Functionally, DynamoDB has the features needed to use it. The interface is not as easy to use, which impacts its usability. Being familiar with AWS in general is helpful in understanding the interface, however it would be better if the interface more closely aligned with traditional tools for managing datastores.
While the actual performance of DynamoDB can vary based on workload and region, it is generally highly responsive and well-regarded for delivering low-latency access to data, making it a strong choice for applications with stringent performance requirements. Organizations often choose DynamoDB for its ability to provide a reliable and performant database service, particularly when combined with effective application design and optimization.
We give the support a high rating simply because every time we've had issues or questions, representatives were in contact with us quickly. Without fail, our issues/questions were handled in a timely matter. That kind of response is integral when client data integrity and availability is in question. There is also a wealth of documentation for resolving issues on your own.
For our use case, we needed a noSQL that would work with AWS Lambdas of specific parts of the internal web applications. We optimized billing and uses , diversified databases for various parts; so it’s not very expensive.
Oracle Database is "the" serious database. There really is no competition in that field. SQL Database would be a serious competitor through the ease of implementation and the "no maintenance," but since it's too expensive for "normal" use (medium to small applications), it just priced itself out of the market, so to speak. Nevertheless, we do have 2 or 3 large applications that are highly integrated in azure, and for those it's just too easy to use SQL Database instead of the on premise Oracle Database with VPN gateways etcetera.
I have taken one point away due to its size limits. In case the application requires queries, it becomes really complicated to read and write data. When it comes to extremely large data sets such as the case in my company, a third-party logistics company, where huge amount of data is generated on a daily basis, even though the scalability is good, it becomes difficult to manage all the data due to limits.
Businesses may only pay for the services they actually use thanks to DynamoDB's usage-based pricing approach.
AWS handles hardware provisioning, data recovery, fault tolerance, patching, and database upgrades for DynamoDB since it is a fully managed database service.
DynamoDB differs from conventional relational databases in terms of its data model, which might be difficult for developers accustomed to dealing with SQL-based systems.
We don't need a dedicated SQL dba because so many of the database maintenance operations are managed. A huge positive not only in budget but time constraints.
The ability to scale quickly is the biggest positive as our data needs change constantly.
Easy to migrate from legacy tools and systems, saving us on the need for redevelopment.