Apache HBase vs. RavenDB

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
HBase
Score 7.3 out of 10
N/A
The Apache HBase project's goal is the hosting of very large tables -- billions of rows X millions of columns -- atop clusters of commodity hardware. Apache HBase is an open-source, distributed, versioned, non-relational database modeled after Google's Bigtable.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 HBaseRavenDB
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
HBaseRavenDB
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 HBaseRavenDB
Considered Both Products
HBase
Chose HBase
HBase is more secure. Easily scalable. HBase is for wide-column store while MongoDB is for document store. Triggers available in HBase while in Mongodb triggers are not available.
Chose HBase
Cassandra os great for writes. But with large datasets, depending, not as great as HBASE. Cassandra does support parquet now. HBase still performance issues. Cassandra has use cases of being used as time series. HBase, it fails miserably. GeoSpatial data, Hbase does work …
Chose HBase
Compared NoSQL databases with traditional databases for faster retrieval and consistency. As MongoDB is a NoSQL supports dynamic fields, however, query performance is bad for aggregations and added maintenance. When compared with MySql and Teradata, it could not scale up as …
Chose HBase
HBase is what you should use if you want a production ready scalable, JSON friendly, key-value, NoSQL, enterprise storage option. It excels over MongoDB due to integration with the extensive Hadoop stack and all the tools, frameworks and benefits there.

HBase has superior …
Chose HBase
Typically, Cassandra is faster on reads and HBase is faster on writes. You use Cassandra when you want to use a website, HBase is just an overall good general use database engine. Cassandra has its own storage engine and HBase uses HDFS and all its benefits. MongoDB is …
Chose HBase
These days I use Apache Cassandra more for even more scalability, good performance under different kind of workloads, and for providing highly available systems. Apache Cassandra also has connectors for Hadoop, Spark, and Solr.
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 HBaseRavenDB
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Apache HBase
7.7
Ratings
14% below category average
RavenDB
9.1
Ratings
3% above category average
Performance7.10 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Availability7.80 Ratings8.90 Ratings
Concurrency7.00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Security7.80 Ratings9.20 Ratings
Scalability8.60 Ratings9.60 Ratings
Data model flexibility7.10 Ratings9.90 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility8.20 Ratings9.40 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Apache HBaseRavenDB
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 HBaseRavenDB
Likelihood to Recommend
7.7
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
7.9
(0 ratings)
9.5
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache HBaseRavenDB
Likelihood to Recommend
HBase is well suited for streaming ingest, fast lookups, massive datasets, data warehouse lookup tables, RDBMS replacement, MongoDB replacement, key-value store, data scans, logs, JSON storage and some binary storage. My preferred use case is for storing data points like time series or data produced by sensors. I often use HBase when I need data available immediately and I am not looking for transactions. This is a great store for really wide tables with tons of columns. It is also great if you are not sure what type of data you are going to have. It really excels at sparse data.
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
  • Scalable and truly non-relational data
  • HBase operations run in real-time on its database rather than MapReduce jobs
  • Scales linearly to support billions of rows with millions of columns
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
  • Write performance
  • Performance support for parquet file format. supports, but performance wise still not there
  • API / library availability for spark, rather than creating a new library for it
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
There's really not anything else out there that I've seen comparable for my use cases. HBase has never proven me wrong. Some companies align their whole business on HBase and are moving all of their infrastructure from other database engines to HBase. It's also open source and has a very collaborative community.
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
No answers on this topic
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
No answers on this topic
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
Compared NoSQL databases with traditional databases for faster retrieval and consistency. As MongoDB is a NoSQL supports dynamic fields, however, query performance is bad for aggregations and added maintenance. When compared with MySQL and Teradata, it could not scale up as fast as Hbase and added cost involved to it. HBase can be easily scalable to a huge volume of records, have a faster lookup and provides consistency
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
  • Positive: Open source, easy to use, good to store big data.
  • Negative: SQL functionalities are not available.
  • More memory utilization
  • More troubleshooting
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