Google's BigQuery is part of the Google Cloud Platform, a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) supporting the querying and rapid analysis of enterprise data.
$0.04
Amazon Redshift
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Redshift is a hosted data warehouse solution, from Amazon Web Services.
$0.24
per GB per month
Pricing
Google BigQuery
Amazon Redshift
Editions & Modules
Standard edition
$0.04 / slot hour
Enterprise edition
$0.06 / slot hour
Enterprise Plus edition
$0.10 / slot hour
Redshift Managed Storage
$0.24
per GB per month
Current Generation
$0.25 - $13.04
per hour
Previous Generation
$0.25 - $4.08
per hour
Redshift Spectrum
$5.00
per terabyte of data scanned
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google BigQuery
Amazon Redshift
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google BigQuery
Amazon Redshift
Considered Both Products
Google BigQuery
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Google BigQuery
I personally find it by far simpler than Amazon redshift due it's onboarding seamlessness. For a quick start and simplify tye access to read the data big query provide better user experience and a smoother user interface. More importantly, the fact that Big Query can be easily …
is much better as it’s easily accessible provides velvet documentation and fulfils all our needs as well as easily integrated into clients, environment
Google BigQuery is simpler and I say it has simpler UI too. If you have a clear long term ask , mainly business intelligence needs then Google BigQuery offers you good. If you need too much of features under a single cloud and you are ok to be lil clumsy then you can check …
I have used most of the data analytics platforms. Based on my work, I have found that the user interface of Google BigQuery is simple to navigate. I like the front view - ease of joining tables, and integration with other platforms.
Compared to every other analytics DB solution I've used, Google BigQuery was by far the easiest to set up and maintain, and scale. The price was also much lower for our use case (internal data analysis).
For our usage, Google BigQuery is cheaper and more performant. The others have their place, but in certain scenarios, Google BigQuery is a better solution.
We actually use Snowflake and BigQuery in tandem because they both currently meet various needs. Redshift, however, has barely been used since our migration away from it. In the case of both Snowflake and BigQuery, they beat Redshift by a long shot. The main reasons are their …
I came to use BigQuery from a traditional system like MS SQL server, the features which are available in BigQuery as a cloud service far outweigh the features from SQL server. I have not used other similar tools like Amazon Redshift but Google BigQuery serves multiple use cases …
Google BigQuery is cheaper and much faster as compared to both. While as compared to Snowflake , we tested it was faster and cheaper by 30%, that is after Snowflake tweaked their environment, if not for that it would have been 90% cheaper than snowflake. Redshift is not easy …
In my opinion, Google BigQuery is custom made to be the best data lake system that is easy to use, scalas to fit any business size, has inbuilt security, as well as tools for data integrity. Although a few other tools have some of the same functionality, Google BigQuery is the …
It's easier to connect data between BigQuery and looker studio instead of connecting the data between BigQuery and tableau in terms of data explore or dashboard creating. Therefore we are considering migrating dashboards from tableau to looker studio for the whole company. On …
When comparing Google BigQuery and Databricks, both platforms are powerful tools for managing and analyzing large datasets. BQ is ideal for businesses requiring large-scale analytics, reporting, and dashboarding with minimal operational overhead. It’s also great for ad-hoc …
Google BigQuery's main advantage over its direct competitors (Amazon Redshift and Azure Synapse) is that it is widely supported by non-Google software, while the others rely heavily on their own cloud ecosystems.
I have used other data manipulation tools like SQL Server and Google BigQuery feels more intuitive, Google provides so much documentation and tutorials that getting to know the software is not only easy but even satisfactory, so I'd say Google BigQuery is very superior to that …
Amazon Redshift was a likely alternative we were considering , but it needs to be provisioned on cluster and nodes, which increases infrastructure management, whereas Google BigQuery is serverless, so no infra management :) Also, I remember when comparing them we did found out …
Google BigQuery as a platform allows for more integrations and customizability than many other offerings. Users mostly need to understand the basics of database and SQL programming in order to get the most from the product. However, other products like Hevo do have less of a …
There are some areas in which this product is better while there are some in which others do better. It's not like Google BigQuery surpasses them in every metric. For a holistic view, I will say we use this because of - scalability, performance, ease of use, and seamless …
The data performance of Google BigQuery is best as per other software. Limitations on Google BigQuery's data size are superior to those of Microsoft SQL. Obtaining real-time data from several IoT devices is another benefit.
BigQuery can automatically scale to accommodate the data and query load, providing potentially unlimited scalability. At the same time, Redshift requires manual scaling efforts to increase or decrease capacity, which might affect performance during scaling operations.
We focused more on data volume and less on full application capabilities. All in all, we found that the two solutions complement each other. For integration, some sources were better handled in SAP HANA, particularly other SAP systems where Google Big Query was more suitable …
SingleStore has a much lower query latency compared to BigQuery. Thus, we segregate faster tasks to SingleStore, and use BigQuery has our main database to store all historical data.
Google BigQuery i would say is better to use than AWS Redshift but not SQL products but this could be due to being more experience in Microsoft and AWS products. It would be really nice if it could use standard SQL server coding rather than having to learn another dialect of …
First and foremost, Google BigQuery's pricing structure, based on data processing and storage, is more cost-effective for our needs. Secondly, since we already use other Google Cloud services, its tight integration with them especially, with Cloud Storage and Dataflow was a big …
Amazon Redshifts has fewer features but at the same time, you also have some gains once it is running on AWS Cloud and it is really easy to set up. Besides that, in our case, it is a bit cheaper and we don't really need the extra features that you can find on Snowflake. Another …
Amazon Redshift, BigQuery, and Snowflake are all fully managed data warehouse services that are designed to handle large volumes of structured data and support business intelligence and analytics efforts. However, Amazon Redshift has the upper hand with its cost-effective …
Biggest advantage of Amazon Redshift is it's part of the aws ecosystem. When tuned well it is also very cheap compared to something like snowflake. And compared to spark or databricks, Amazon Redshift is a solid warehouse that's well suited for tabular data. We use it for user …
We evaluated [Amazon] Redshift vs BigQuery vs Amazon EMR, back in 2014. Back then BigQuery cost was slightly higher than that of [Amazon] Redshift price structure. Amazon EMR, needs lots more management (Admin tasks) and EMR is designed to be ephemeral and not designed to be a …
Redshift leapfrogged Hive back when Hive was trying to figure out how to implement indexes, providing a more stable, standardized (postgres), easy to use (any postgres client), easier to administer, and scalable solution for querying server logs and raw usage data.
Amazon Redshift is one of the fastest service offerings available in the market now. Plus you get an advantage of using a cutting edge compute service offering from AWS. Other technologies are fast but not as good as Amazon Redshift, I would say. Our business is interested in …
1. Redshift has better compression (automated) consuming less space then competitors 2. Automated Vacuum Delete for having consistent performance 3. AWS introduced ra3 node types for simple separation of compute and storage
Its definitely an improvement on all fronts for our business needs. Again, our MySQL server was really slow and we needed a more efficient solution. It was a major upgrade, but it is much more expensive than an in house server. It was expected but I'd say that lots of headaches …
Amazon Redshift supports multiple data formats including multiple structured data formats. And it is easy to implement a cluster if you do not have knowledge of data lake solution. Also when you do not need a lot of resources, you can just scale down so you do not have to spend …
Amazon Redshift has a better UI, hands down. And it is easy to integrate with bigger tools like Talend. It has many issues when it comes to understanding the architect perspective like Toad, which has a better UI for architect data together. However, that is because we are not …
We like Snowflake for its separation of computing and storage and also the separation of data warehouse different users. We replaced Redshift with Snowflake. However, Snowflake is great for its pay for performance kind of methodology.
Azure SQL Database was discarded because of a less attractive licensing, costs, plus its integrates poorly with many of the Azure offerings as say Azure Data Factory - it is not a true ETL yet. Also, the rest of the tools used were of Open Source type and it did not look like a …
It works on the cloud and we use the platform Dbeaver which is very unique and easy to maintain. There are very limited tools of this kind but the security issues are pretty high within those tools.
As our applications are hosted on AWS service, Redshift is the best option for us. Also, it provide a near to real-time performance on limited datasets and less complex queries. High availability is the major concern for any growing business and AWS is the best option for this. …
We are currently on Redshift, because it was out before Snowflake. However, Snowflake looks promising. It's the new shiny toy that gives options that Redshift does not provide for. The big thing is that storage and compute can be scaled separately, whereas you cannot do that in …
Most of our stack is on AWS, so while Snowflake and BigQuery was a viable option from a performance perspective, it was easier to integrate with RedShift. We considered hosting SQL Server on AWS or using Amazon RDS (Postgres or MySQL), however, the self-service aspect of …
Snowflake supports semi-structured data types and provided solutions to manage/process the semi-structured data. It supported sharing data between the different accounts and makes it easy in the scale and scale down process. Snowflake doesn't limit users on the database.
Amazon Redshift is much easier to set up and start using. It interacts well with the PostgreSQL client (psql) and shares certain basic data dictionary, and people familiar with PostgreSQL feel right at home. The cluster is part of AWS services offering, and it works well with …
Some organizations use PostgreSQL as an OLAP store. PostgreSQL offers a modern SQL dialect, data types, and features that Redshift lacks. RDS is a great managed PostgreSQL product. However, PostgreSQL is a poor choice for a data warehouse. It's row-oriented storage requires …
Google BigQuery is great for being the central datastore and entry point of data if you're on GCP. It seamlessly integrates with other Google products, meaning you can ingest data from other Google products with ease and little technical knowledge, and all of it is near real-time. Being serverless, BigQuery will scale with you, which means you don't have to worry about contention or spikes in demand/storage. This can, however, mean your costs can run away quickly or mount up at short notice.
If the number of connections is expected to be low, but the amounts of data are large or projected to grow it is a good solutions especially if there is previous exposure to PostgreSQL. Speaking of Postgres, Redshift is based on several versions old releases of PostgreSQL so the developers would not be able to take advantage of some of the newer SQL language features. The queries need some fine-tuning still, indexing is not provided, but playing with sorting keys becomes necessary. Lastly, there is no notion of the Primary Key in Redshift so the business must be prepared to explain why duplication occurred (must be vigilant for)
Its serverless architecture and underlying Dremel technology are incredibly fast even on complex datasets. I can get answers to my questions almost instantly, without waiting hours for traditional data warehouses to churn through the data.
Previously, our data was scattered across various databases and spreadsheets and getting a holistic view was pretty difficult. Google BigQuery acts as a central repository and consolidates everything in one place to join data sets and find hidden patterns.
Running reports on our old systems used to take forever. Google BigQuery's crazy fast query speed lets us get insights from massive datasets in seconds.
Redshift is fully managed. Small teams do not have the resources to maintain a cluster. CloudWatch metrics are provided out-of-the-box, and it is easy to configure alarms.
Redshift's console allows you to easily inspect and manage queries, and manage the performance of the cluster.
Redshift is ubiquitous; many products (e.g., ETL services) integrate with it out-of-the-box.
Writing .csvs to S3 and querying them through Redshift Spectrum is convenient.
It is challenging to predict costs due to BigQuery's pay-per-query pricing model. User-friendly cost estimation tools, along with improved budget alerting features, could help users better manage and predict expenses.
The BigQuery interface is less intuitive. A more user-friendly interface, enhanced documentation, and built-in tutorial systems could make BigQuery more accessible to a broader audience.
It could benefit from adding data integrity and programming tools common to other database management systems.
Amazon Redshift is based on PostgreSQL 8.0.2. That version of PostgreSQL was released in December 2006. While PostgreSQL was much improved since then, the new features were not implemented in Redshift. Many basic features are missing from it.
Primary keys can be declared but not enforced. Referential integrity (foreign keys) can be declared but not enforced. UNIQUE and CHECK constraints are not supported and cannot be declared.
IDENTITY can be declared on a column, and Redshift will put unique values into it. However: IDENTITY values in the newly inserted rows won’t be incremental or sequential. To implement a sequential number, you need to write your own custom code.
There are no stored procedures in Redshift. We are writing SQL script files, and then parsing and running them one statement at a time from a Python program. This also enabled us to implement execution-time error logging.
In SQL scripts, to check for the row count of affected rows, a complicated join query against some system tables or views has to be executed.
Data Control Language (DCL) does not exist. No statements like IF, WHILE, DO, RAISERROR, etc.
On performance of views… Views do not “pass-through” a query parameter which is a potential problem for performance.
When selecting against a view with the WHERE clause outside of the view, the inner query of the view will be executed first without consideration for the WHERE clause, and only then the WHERE clause will be applied.
Certain clauses of SQL work many times faster than other clauses. So be careful and test your statements for performance earlier rather than later, especially if working with a large data set.
There was a situation when DELETE FROM JOIN was unacceptably slow. Replacing JOIN with the USING clause made DELETE instantaneous.
We have to use this product as its a 3rd party supplier choice to utilise this product for their data side backend so will not be likely we will move away from this product in the future unless the 3rd party supplier decides to change data vendors.
web UI is easy and convenient. Many RDBMS clients such as aqua data studio, Dbeaver data grid, and others connect. Range of well-documented APIs available. The range of features keeps expanding, increasing similar features to traditional RDBMS such as Oracle and DB2
Overall it serves all our aspects of data management like data cleaning, data manipulation, and data reporting on the cloud platform. We can create stored procedures and triggers in it very easily as all the options are self suggested in it. We can easily attach the results of ARS to the other tools as well for drawing the statistical results.
I have never had any significant issues with Google Big Query. It always seems to be up and running properly when I need it. I cannot recall any times where I received any kind of application errors or unplanned outages. If there were any they were resolved quickly by my IT team so I didn't notice them.
I think Google Big Query's performance is in the acceptable range. Sometimes larger datasets are somewhat sluggish to load but for most of our applications it performs at a reasonable speed. We do have some reports that include a lot of complex calculations and others that run on granular store level data that so sometimes take a bit longer to load which can be frustrating.
BigQuery can be difficult to support because it is so solid as a product. Many of the issues you will see are related to your own data sets, however you may see issues importing data and managing jobs. If this occurs, it can be a challenge to get to speak to the correct person who can help you.
The support was great and helped us in a timely fashion. We did use a lot of online forums as well, but the official documentation was an ongoing one, and it did take more time for us to look through it. We would have probably chosen a competitor product had it not been for the great support
Google BigQuery of course collects a much much larger array of raw data and can handle (practically) an unlimited amount of data. For a large enterprise like ours that relies on large-scale analytics, this is absolutely imperative. Google BigQuery can also combine GA4 data with external sources (like CRM tools), so our analytics can be unified. Due to our heavy reliance on GA4, Google BigQuery is the natural choice since it is a Google product and has better integration.
We evaluated [Amazon] Redshift vs BigQuery vs Amazon EMR, back in 2014. Back then BigQuery cost was slightly higher than that of [Amazon] Redshift price structure. Amazon EMR, needs lots more management (Admin tasks) and EMR is designed to be ephemeral and not designed to be a data store. [Amazon] Redshift was ideal with the price structure, performance and ROI[.]
We have continued to expand out use of Google Big Query over the years. I'd say its flexibility and scalability is actually quite good. It also integrates well with other tools like Tableau and Power BI. It has served the needs of multiple data sources across multiple departments within my company.
In some places, Google BigQuery has helped us save some money by avoiding the need for expensive infrastructure and reducing some of the operational costs.
Scalability is up-to-date and really helpful in multiple places.
Knowledge transfer is easy as it is very user-friendly, so the learning curve has been reduced.
Also, it gives us more insights from our data, helping us make smarter decisions for our business.