Apache Cassandra vs. RavenDB

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cassandra
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Cassandra is a no-SQL database from Apache.N/A
RavenDB
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
RavenDB is a NoSQL Document Database that is fully transactional (ACID) across the database and throughout clusters. The database minimizes the need for third party addons, tools, or support to boost developer productivity and get projects into production fast. Users can setup and secure a data cluster deploy in the cloud, on-premise or in a hybrid environment. RavenDB offers a Database as a Service solution, allowing users to pass on all…N/A
Pricing
Apache CassandraRavenDB
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CassandraRavenDB
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache CassandraRavenDB
Considered Both Products
Cassandra
Chose Cassandra
It was packaged with the vendor product we bought. Also, it’s good for high performance transactional systems. I'm part of our NoSQL team and Cassandra quickly became a favorite for developers with agile teams.
Chose Cassandra
DynamoDB is good and is also a truly global database as a service on AWS. However, if your organization is not using AWS, then Cassandra will provide a highly scalable and tuneable, consistent database.
Cassandra is also fault-tolerant and good for replication across multiple …
Chose Cassandra
Cassandra has its own use case. It performs very well as a data store. Data can be written to it at a high rate. It cannot be compared to traditional RDBMS like Oracle, because they all have their own usage. Even MongoDB, which is somewhat similar, cannot be stacked up against …
Chose Cassandra
We evaluated MongoDB also, but don't like the single point failure possibility. The HBase coupled us too tightly to the Hadoop world while we prefer more technical flexibility. Also HBase is designed for "cold"/old historical data lake use cases and is not typically used for …
Chose Cassandra
Technology selection should be done based on the need and not based on buzz words in the market (google searching). If your data need flat file approach and more searchable based on index and partition keys, then it's better to go for Cassandra. Cassandra is a better choice …
Chose Cassandra
Cassandra is the only NoSQL database I have extensive experience with. In terms of other open source database solutions, I can say that I like Cassandra as much or equally as traditional Oracle MySql, and a lot more than PostgresSQL. The decision to use Cassandra was driven by …
Chose Cassandra
Against HBASE, writes were faster. Reads not so much. Also ability to store in other formats would be good (such as objects). Compared to aerospike, does not compare. Aerospike blows it out of water.
Chose Cassandra
Cassandra does one thing very well. It's able to collect any type of metrics and analytics and store them at very fast speeds. But when it comes to reading the data, there are minor performance issues. That's when other databases such as couchdb or couchbase come in. They can …
Chose Cassandra

These are the features which makes Cassandra different from others:

  • Cassandra is a distributed datastore, with a built-in coordinator. This means that requests are intelligently forwarded to the correct node.
  • It is generally very fast, and especially shines with write heavy …
Chose Cassandra
Apache Cassandra has the best of both worlds, it is a Java based NoSQL, linearly scalable, best in class tunable performance across different workloads, fault tolerant, distributed, masterless, time series database. We have used both Apache HBase and MongoDB for some use cases …
Chose Cassandra
Four years ago, I needed to choose a web-scale database. Having used relational databases for years (PostgreSQL is my favorite), I needed something that could perform well at scale with no downtime. I considered VoltDB for its in-memory speed, but it's limited in scale. I …
Chose Cassandra
I tried to evaluate Cassandra against Voldemort and found Cassandra more efficient when writing scalable applications.
Chose Cassandra
We also evaluated mySQL and mongoDB. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses but they are less suited for storing massive amounts of time series data. In addition, they are not elastic by nature and we required a "future-proof" solution as it was difficult to estimate …
Chose Cassandra
Cassandra is well suited to more complex networks like multiple data centers. The underlying distributed systems logic is fundamentally sound.
RavenDB
Chose RavenDB
First of all, Microsoft Access is also a powerful, efficient, and free database. But the feel of it, I mean the GUI is not all great for me. It is very eye-stressing. MongoDB is also a good database, it too is efficient, productive, and powerful. But, upon this, RavenDB is a …
Chose RavenDB
The team is very nice, very helpful, and answer very fast to any answer you may have. Thanks to their help, we were able to use and understand all the RavenDB features in no time! Documentation for server and client is very clear, with a lot of use cases. Maintenance is easy, …
Chose RavenDB
RavenDB is just smarter than the competitors. The mapping reduction sorting is head and shoulders above everything else I've used. Nothing really approaches comparable in terms of complexity. Because of the searching of predetermined categories, read efficiency is terrible. …
Chose RavenDB
The company needed a cache server that was closest and the most accessible, which is why we are currently experimenting with RavenDB which gives us the option to set up our hub in a local setting.
Chose RavenDB
Much better support, more transparent pricing, much more easy setup process, native integration into c# / net core. We also tried to set up a Mongo Atlas cluster by self-study but weren't able to get this running. There is a much better response when searching in google, but a …
Chose RavenDB
While MongoDB is in general more popular, I cannot fathom why that is. If you want ACID support (and as a developer, you'll always want that), MongoDB is way slower when compared to RavenDB. Furthermore, RavenStudio is just integrated, while

Chose RavenDB
Flexibility and performance really set RavenDB apart.
Chose RavenDB
[RavenDB is] just simply much cleverer than the competition. The map reduce indexing is a league above anything else I have used. Nothing else comes close on abstraction as well. Read performance is terrifying due to querying pre calculated indexes. It is just a pity it is not …
Chose RavenDB
Having ACID compliance is a big enough reason to choose RavenDB over the other products. You don't have to worry about losing your data if the plug is pulled. You're able to perform many actions within a transaction and not worry about your data being in a bad state if the …
Chose RavenDB
Installing and configuring. We had some big issues with indexing the data after the documents were created and wanted to expand the index, with millions of records this task mostly did not complete despite a dedicated server.
Chose RavenDB
Out of the many variants of document and SQL databases out there that we have used, RavenDB is our no 1 choice for anything but the smallest projects which can be served with a very small SQL instance. Other than that, RavenDB packs more features and is easier to work with than …
Chose RavenDB
The given alternatives are also powerful and really good noSQL databases but the highest availability of RavenDB allows me/us to know it a lot better.
RavenDB is encrypted by default wherever we use it in production and it has a high level of documents compression.
Chose RavenDB
As I have said before in the previous questions ... RavenDB has a very simple clean UI, but stacks up in its power. Though new to me, I have found it to be much easier to learn and use than my previous database - Microsoft SQL Server. RavenDB's simple design and meaningful …
Chose RavenDB
MongoDB, Alma | Rethink SIS. and Azure Cosmos DB
Chose RavenDB
Being that ACID and cluster transaction support is a big plus against all of them. Cool prices on Azure and AWS is another plus. The ability to search between millions of documents.
Chose RavenDB
When I first started using RavenDB, I did evaluate Mongo DB but found it to be lacking. The primary issue was that Mongo DB did not support atomic consistency for the persistence of multiple documents at the same time, although I think this may not be an issue with subsequent …
Chose RavenDB
We have evaluated or used three other databases in the process of building our product.

Amazon Aurora (MySQL)
Chose RavenDB
Once I had got my head around the concept of a document database it was a happy bye-bye to SQL Server.
Firebird - far too fiddly - I found myself writing a silly API to sit on top of Firebird just to do the most basic things.
MongoDb - in the very short time I spent with it, it …
Chose RavenDB
RavenDB has a richer API, has security out of the box (via certificates), produces indexes automatically and updates them when data changes.
Chose RavenDB
We chose Raven over Mongo because it has robust support for multi-document transactions, first-class .NET and LINQ support, a well-designed API that has inspired imitation and has better tooling out of the box. We chose Raven over Redis because Raven is a full persistent …
Features
Apache CassandraRavenDB
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Apache Cassandra
8.0
Ratings
10% below category average
RavenDB
9.1
Ratings
3% above category average
Performance8.50 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Availability8.80 Ratings8.90 Ratings
Concurrency7.60 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Security8.00 Ratings9.20 Ratings
Scalability9.50 Ratings9.60 Ratings
Data model flexibility6.70 Ratings9.90 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility7.00 Ratings9.40 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Apache CassandraRavenDB
Small Businesses
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache CassandraRavenDB
Likelihood to Recommend
6.0
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.6
(0 ratings)
9.5
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.0
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
7.0
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache CassandraRavenDB
Likelihood to Recommend
Cassandra excels in a broad range of applications -- especially if you understand its data model and write your applications accordingly. It's an excellent choice for time-series data, and a poor choice for application queues. It performs the best if you can simply record history and compute from it, rather than going back and editing or deleting things a lot.
Read full review
RavenDB is very well suited for NoSQL beginners to start easily setting up and using a NoSQL database. Also to set up a high performance and high availability cluster is possible without reading tons of documentation. Very straightforward assistant! The performance is really high.
Read full review
Pros
  • High Availability - we utilize the data replication features of Cassandra. This enables us to access our data even when several nodes have gone down
  • Data Locality - our architecture combines Cassandra storage nodes and computation nodes in the same machine. This enables us to utilize data locality and limit expensive network IO to read data.
  • Elasticity - Cassandra is a shared nothing architecture. Nodes can be added very easily and they discover the network topology. As soon as a node has joined the Cassandra ring, the data is redistributed among the existing nodes and streamed to it automatically.
Read full review
  • Document Database - no Object-Relational Impedance Mismatch
  • ACID support that is optimized for performance
  • Can be easily integrated into automated tests (unit tests)
  • Easily configurable via C# code
  • Comes directly with RavenStudio - no SSMS or SQL Developer required
  • In general low footprint when it comes to memory and disk consumption
  • Useful safety nets for new developers - e.g. by default an exception is thrown when you make too many requests within a session
Read full review
Cons
  • No Ad-Hoc Queries: Cassandra data storage layer is basically a key-value storage system. This means that you must "model" your data around the queries you want to surface, rather than around the structure of the data itself.
  • There are no aggregations queries available in Cassandra.
  • Not fit for transactional data.
Read full review
  • Developing methods is challenging if developers are unfamiliar with the accurate simulation approach.
  • It does not allow you to replicating, or authorized access without first acquiring a license.
  • The lack of evidence of tracking records in the enterprise systems raises several concerns about RavenDB.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
I would recommend Cassandra DB to those who know their use case very well, as well as know how they are going to store and retrieve data. If you need a guarantee in data storage and retrieval, and a DB that can be linearly grown by adding nodes across availability zones and regions, then this is the database you should choose.
Read full review
We've had an excellent experience using RavenDB. Internally we are testing the newer features in 5.0 such as time series, which will effect the con specified previously dependent on the real world performance. We foresee that BattleCrate will continue to use RavenDB as we grow.
Read full review
Usability
It’s great tool but it can be complicated when it comes administration and maintenance.
Read full review
Really good .NET client that is very easy to use. The management studio is excellent and puts anything that Microsoft or Oracle have to shame. Very quick to develop with once the complexity hurdle has been overcome. Initially using it can be a bit painful until you fully grasp the event sourced nature of the indexing.
Read full review
Support Rating
Sometimes instead giving straight answer, we ‘re getting transfered to talk professional service.
Read full review
Had a question that was answered in minutes. Never used a NoSQL approach before, but was able to be proficient in a matter of hours. Easy to read API Documentation. 5 out 5 support in book, I have never once ran into an issue that wasn't quickly solved by either their support team or myself doing a quick search online.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
RavenFS changed along the way and made us change the codes.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Apache Cassandra has the best of both worlds, it is a Java based NoSQL, linearly scalable, best in class
tunable performance across different workloads, fault tolerant, distributed, masterless, time series database. We have used both Apache HBase and MongoDB for some use cases which were within hadoop setup and JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) document store respectively, but given the overall factors favoring Apache Cassandra, it is a technology choice for multiple platforms!
Read full review
RavenDB is just smarter than the competitors. The mapping reduction sorting is head and shoulders above everything else I've used. Nothing really approaches comparable in terms of complexity. Because of the searching of predetermined categories, read efficiency is terrible. RavenDB is a storage system designed for the current websites and functional prototypes. It has an easy-to-use interface and enables quick replication and backup installation. Furthermore, technical assistance responds quickly and walks you through the implementation and deployment procedures.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • The open source version of Cassandra is only suggested for learning the basic concepts and play with its core features. Unless you really want to invest a lot in your developers and architects knowing every detail of Cassandra, I prefer the DataStax enterprise version. Although the license cost is relatively high, I think they it is worth it. I'm thinking about the support, the monitoring tool OpsCenter, and the integration of Solr and Spark (for data analysis).
  • Cassandra didn't fully replace our old and traditional relation database Oracle. In addition, it opens another door for us to deal with some special business use cases that NoSQL database can do better in a more feasible and efficient way.
Read full review
  • RavenDB has saved my customers a lot of money with their cloud services' tiered model. The database is able to grow with the project/company and can start out small at a low cost.
  • RavenDB is free for three nodes and three CPUs, which makes it great for development scenarios. You're able to start rapidly building applications without having to worry about licensing.
  • Scaling out has allowed us to use three small cloud servers when starting out and get the performance and throughput of a single larger server.
Read full review
ScreenShots