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
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
Google BigQuery
Azure SQL Database
Editions & Modules
Standard edition
$0.04 / slot hour
Enterprise edition
$0.06 / slot hour
Enterprise Plus edition
$0.10 / slot hour
2 vCORE
$0.5044
Per Hour
6 vCORE
$1.5131
Per Hour
10 vCORE
$2.52
Per Hour
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google BigQuery
Azure SQL Database
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
Azure SQL Database
Considered Both Products
Google BigQuery
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Google BigQuery
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.
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 …
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 …
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 …
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.