TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) vs. Google Cloud SQL

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)

288 Reviews and Ratings

Google Cloud SQL

81 Reviews and Ratings

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Amazon RDS

    Score8.7 out of 10
    		N/AAmazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS) is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) from Amazon Web Services.N/A

    Google Cloud SQL

    Score8.7 out of 10
    		N/AGoogle Cloud SQL is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) with the capability and functionality of MySQL.

    $0

    per core hour

    Pricing
    Amazon RDSGoogle Cloud SQL
    Editions & Modules
    Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL
    $0.24 ($0.48)
    per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
    Amazon RDS for MariaDB
    $0.25 ($0.50)
    per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
    Amazon RDS for MySQL
    $0.29 ($0.58)
    per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
    Amazon RDS for Oracle
    $0.482 ($0.964)
    per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
    Amazon RDS for SQL Server
    $1.02 ($1.52)
    per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
    License - Express
    $0
    per core hour
    License - Web
    $0.01134
    per core hour
    Storage - for backups
    $.08
    per month per GB
    HA Storage - for backups
    $.08
    per month per GB
    Storage - HDD storage capacity
    $.09
    per month per GB
    License - Standard
    $0.13
    per core hour
    Storage - SSD storage capacity
    $.17
    per month per GB
    HA Storage - HDD storage capacity
    $.18
    per month per GB
    HA Storage - SSD storage capacity
    $.34
    per month per GB
    License - Enterprise
    $0.47
    per core hour
    Memory
    $5.11
    per month per GB
    HA Memory
    $10.22
    per month per GB
    vCPUs
    $30.15
    per month per vCPU
    HA vCPUs
    $60.30
    per month per vCPU
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    Amazon RDSGoogle Cloud SQL
    Free Trial
    NoYes
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalNo setup fee
    Additional Details—Pricing varies with editions, engine, and settings, including how much storage, memory, and CPU you provision. Cloud SQL offers per-second billing.
    More Pricing Information
    Community Pulse
    Amazon RDSGoogle Cloud SQL
    Considered Both Products
    Amazon AWS
    Mohit Trivedi
    Database Administrator in Information Technology at EDII Software Solutions LLP (Information Technology & Services, 51-200 employees)
    Chose Amazon RDS
    Amazon RDS supports a wider range of database engines, including MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and Amazon Aurora (MySQL and PostgreSQL-compatible) than Google Cloud SQL. When compared to Google Cloud SQL, AWS provides a larger global footprint with …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Amazon RDS
    RDS support more relational database engines. RDS gives us option to choose type of machine in which database will be hosted which Google Cloud SQL not. Security-wise RDS enforce by default to set password which Google Cloud SQL doesn't. Also we can attack security group to …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Amazon RDS
    Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) stands out among similar products due to its seamless integration with other AWS services, automated backups, and multi-AZ deployments for high availability. Its support for various database engines, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, and …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Amazon RDS
    There are a lot of factor we took into consideration the most important ones are: Ease of use and setup - Compared to other similar options Amazon RDS is very easy to setup just clicking few options and its ready for POC and for production very easy and flexible Terraform …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Amazon RDS
    RDS seems to be the best cross-section between cost, availability, deployment and throughput.
    Incentivized
    Harshal Sanap
    Cloud Engineer in Information Technology at Searce (Information Technology & Services, 501-1000 employees)
    Chose Amazon RDS
    1: If your company is already deeply involved in the AWS ecosystem, such as AWS Lambda, Amazon S3, or Amazon Redshift, leveraging Amazon RDS might result in a more seamless integration of services. AWS offers a broad set of cloud services, which makes it easier to design and …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Amazon RDS
    Amazon RDS excels with its widely adopted and mature ecosystem, supporting various database engines. While Azure SQL Database offers a tiered pricing structure and automatic patching, and Cloud SQL provides straightforward pricing and easy scaling, Amazon RDS's extensive …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Amazon RDS
    Earlier we were using the Azure Ecosystem but we faced some issues in DevOps side so we decided to migrate towards some other reliable infra so we migrated all our engines, RDS and other services to Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) and from that time we are using this. …
    Incentivized
    Alok Pabalkar
    Co-Founder & CTO in Research & Development at GIDE.AI (Internet, 11-50 employees)
    Chose Amazon RDS
    AWS RDS provides multiple Engines as compared to Google SQL AWS RDS provides more than 5 read replicas which a Google SQL does not AWS RDS is a cheaper option than Redshift for smaller datasets. Redshift is a Dataware house and must be used for super large datasets only …
    Incentivized
    Sayam Jain
    Associate Project Manager in Information Technology at Spanidea Systems (Information Technology & Services, 501-1000 employees)
    Chose Amazon RDS
    In my opinion, Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) has provided better services in terms of Scalability and data Security as compared to its competitor. It helped us to manage our data using RDS server more efficiently and effectively. The high Availability helped us to …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Amazon RDS
    At first GCP was considered, but it not very intuitive to use and maintain. We then wanted to run MySQL instances on EC2, which would have been a little cost effective but having limited man power and hassle of patching, scaling and backup led us to select more managed service.
    Incentivized
    Alok Patwal
    Software Developer in Engineering at ezDI (Health, Wellness and Fitness, 201-500 employees)
    Chose Amazon RDS
    As a POC, we had worked with Azure and GCP's databases as well. One problem with Azure is that it seems slow in supporting new versions of MySQL. With GCP Cloud SQL, the security configuration for the database was not as intuitive as in AWS. The UI in both Azure and GCP was …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Amazon RDS
    Very similar. In our isolated usage, we saw mild performance advantage in GCP, but AWS RDS is cheaper and has more built-in.
    Incentivized
    Bob Smith
    Tech Co-Founder in Corporate at Infofree.com (Computer Software, 1-10 employees)
    Chose Amazon RDS
    It's hard to identify how Amazon RDS stacks up against the databases they support, because to install and use a relational database in a production environment you need a Database Administrator to help install, configure and manage. Amazon RDS keeps the details simple enough …
    Incentivized
    Google
    Verified User
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    Google Cloud SQL ended up being less expensive, have a greater support team and offer a much better interface
    Incentivized
    Priyanshu Rastogi
    Senior Backend developer in Engineering at zaamo (Retail, 11-50 employees)
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    Setting up or migrating Google Cloud SQL is easy as compared to AWS. It has a good monitoring and logging mechanism and a good user interface which makes it easy to navigate.It also has a pay as you go pricing which makes it easier to reduce cost. Google Cloud SQL offers …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    Actually Google Cloud SQL is similar to them, the difference is which engine each supports e.g. there's no managed Oracle DB in Google Cloud SQL but as long as you don't need Oracle, Google Cloud SQL should suffice and give you great user experience and performance. You also …
    Incentivized
    Alok Pabalkar
    Co-Founder & CTO in Research & Development at GIDE.AI (Internet, 11-50 employees)
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    - AWS RDS and Aurora is a just a notch above Google Cloud SQL as it provide boost in performance when required
    - Google Cloud SQL Mysql Engine is Cloud based and better than native Mysql as it provides management of the server out of box
    - Compared to a MongoDB it has a low …
    Incentivized
    Niloofar Keshvari Nia
    IT Operations and Support Specialist in Information Technology at AZEREX LLC. (Information Technology & Services, 1-10 employees)
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    Easier learning, simple features and settings with a very user-friendly application environment and flexible prices make Google Cloud [SQL] a pioneering option over competitors
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    Google Cloud SQL is just as good as the other guys. We were already invested in GCP, which made the choice very easy. We did not want to start fresh in AWS or Azure. We used our existing GCP setup and just added Cloud SQL. It's unfortunate that companies continue to send people …
    Incentivized
    Leonel Quinteros
    Director of Technology in Information Technology at Global Brigades, Inc. (Philanthropy, 51-200 employees)
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    Google Cloud SQL is very similar to other cloud provider options. AWS and DigitalOcean are direct competitors, While Azure is focusing on their own products. At cloud provider level, it's a matter of choosing the provider, and this product will not play a significant role on …
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    Kind of similar features provided against RDS. Used this because of transactional db
    Incentivized
    Verified User
    Chose Google Cloud SQL
    Google's solution for database is, at least for our team, easier to implement and maintain than Amazon's offer.
    Incentivized
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Features
    Amazon RDSGoogle Cloud SQL
    Database-as-a-Service
    Comparison of Database-as-a-Service features of Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) and Google Cloud SQL
    Feature
    Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
    -
    Ratings
    Google Cloud SQL
    9.3
    24 Ratings
    Automatic software patching00 Ratings9.612 Ratings
    Database scalability00 Ratings9.524 Ratings
    Automated backups00 Ratings9.724 Ratings
    Database security provisions00 Ratings9.524 Ratings
    Monitoring and metrics00 Ratings8.223 Ratings
    Automatic host deployment00 Ratings9.012 Ratings
    User Ratings
    Amazon RDSGoogle Cloud SQL
    Likelihood to Recommend
    8.8
    (130 ratings)
    9.5
    (24 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    8.4
    (5 ratings)
    9.0
    (1 ratings)
    Usability
    8.0
    (7 ratings)
    7.9
    (6 ratings)
    Availability
    9.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Performance
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Support Rating
    9.6
    (13 ratings)
    6.4
    (4 ratings)
    Online Training
    10.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Ease of integration
    -
    (0 ratings)
    6.4
    (6 ratings)
    Product Scalability
    9.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)