Google Cloud SQL is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) with the capability and functionality of MySQL.
$0
per core hour
Microsoft Access
Score 7.6 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft Access is a database management system from Microsoft that combines the relational Microsoft Jet Database Engine with a graphical user interface and software-development tools.
$139.99
per PC
Pricing
Google Cloud SQL
Microsoft Access
Editions & Modules
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
Microsoft Access
$139.99
per PC
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Cloud SQL
Microsoft Access
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No 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
Google Cloud SQL
Microsoft Access
Considered Both Products
Google Cloud SQL
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Google Cloud SQL
Google Cloud SQL ended up being less expensive, have a greater support team and offer a much better interface
I 100% prefer Google Cloud SQL over Amazon Aurora in terms of ease of use and clarity in terms of understanding how the autoscaling is going to work. Connecting to the database directly is also much more straightforward.
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 …
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 …
Google SQL was great as a first SQL provision. It quickly enabled the apps to be built and scaled as needed for a while. It was robust and adaptable as needed and easy to export as needed when ready, depending on growth. Cost-wise, it's a good choice and requires little …
Unlike other products, Google Cloud SQL has very flexible features that allow it to be selected for a free trial account so that the product can be analyzed and tested before purchasing it. Integration capabilities with most of the web services tools are easier regarding Google …
When comparing cost, Google Cloud SQL typically offers a more straightforward and versatile plan than Azure SQL Database. Cloud SQL for PostgreSQL is a serverless solution provided by Google Cloud SQL that automatically modifies resources according to workload. For customers …
- 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 …
At first, we choose Google Cloud SQL only for demo purposes. It is so easy to set up and It is fully managed. we have worked with Azure SQL as well but Google SQL is more simple to use and It fully secure, reliable, provides high availability, and very Low Latency.
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
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 …
There are many options for cloud-hosted dedicated SQL instances. In many ways, simply moving from software and server-based database to a dedicated cloud database is just generally good. All hosts provide some sort of scaling and backup, and all separate the server management …
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 …
The Google Cloud SQL offering fits into our development stack and was a clean replacement for our MySQL database. If we had been using SQL Server instead, then the offering from Azure would have made more sense. I have used both in the past and both work well, with GCP being …
It's dramatically faster than running MySQL on a VM, which is what we did before. Whatever Google has done to optimize Google Cloud SQL compared to standalone MySQL installations has worked.
I've used supabase and can say that Google Cloud SQL is a lot more hands off. They just run an instance for you and don't do much more than that. Which is exactly what we wanted. If you want something that is truly fully managed and abstracted then I guess that would be a …
Microsoft Access is a superb software in database management system. I have been using it for many years without any hesitations. The software is making it different from other software with its awesome features. The software is cost effective for the organisation. It also …
Excel is a fantastic - robust application that can do so much so easily. Its easy to train and understand. However - excel does not provide a reporting function and that is typically where we will suggest a move to [Microsoft] Access. [Microsoft] Access requires a little more …
With [Microsoft] Access I am able to quickly create simple database driven solutions with built in UI and reporting in one tool. Advanced coding is not necessary and the tool guides you through building out. Opponents for a robust, end-to/end product.
Having used Snowflake, I can definitely say that both of these tools are very easy to use and value for money. Although for me, the aspects where Microsoft Access stacks up are its low cost and usability. Snowflake is good with its cloud-based system but for startups where the …
I haven't really used another database product other than Microsoft Access since the mid-90s. I don't even remember which program I did use, but needless to say, it did not have as much functionality nor was it as user friendly as databases today. So I really can't say how …
Crystal is easier for report writing, but isn't a database solution. Salesforce is lovely, but much more expensive than an old copy of Microsoft Office. For a small budget, [Microsoft] Access was really the only viable option. I only wish it was easier to write complex reports.
[Selected Microsoft Access for] employee learning simplicity, attractive graphical environment and features of Microsoft 365 with responsive Microsoft support.
Visual FoxPro is a discontinued software, and no longer has support. Also, very few people still use it, or ever know how to use it. Excel is very popular, but [Microsoft] Access can do things like data joins much easier and faster
Although SQL is a full-blown platform for heavy database management, Microsoft Access serves the purpose perfectly for small and mid-scale enterprises. It is also perfect for people just getting started with database management. The graphical user interface is a major plus …
Microsoft Access is better for large files and backlogs than Excel because it can handle the workload. Excel is great as well, but filtering and searching is limited, and it can crash rather easily. You don't see those problems with Access.
We've actually started to use both of these programs. There are pros and cons to both. Microsoft Access is best for linking two sets of data that already have a common shared field (i.e. both sets of data include a student ID number, social security number, etc) Airtable is best …
SharePoint is good for simple data structures, use of workflow, integration with AD, etc. But SharePoint does not support fully relational data or complex reporting, whereas Access absolutely does.
Being a similar "Windows application" it's easier to start to use as part of Office. Also, the GUI capabilities are much more advanced than other high-performance databases.
Tableau is not even a 'switch-out' tool, it's for visualization so it's not a fair comparison. Against other databasing tools, MySQL is still my favorite may be simply due to being a creature of comfort because that's where I first learned to manage DB. However, Microsoft …
MS SQL is a more powerful tool but I love the reporting feature in MS Access. MS Excel is useful for complex calculations but to me, MS Access helps me organize that data. InfoPath is similar to MS Access in that you can create forms for data entry, but it does not include …
Microsoft Access is a bit dated compared to other database tools. It is slower, not able to handle quantities of data that are as large as the other tools, and a bit more finicky. However, it is sometimes the preferred tool for some clients. It also has a lower barrier to entry …
Filemaker Pro focuses more on data collection in a single, flat file while Access allows for relationships to be drawn between data tables the reduces duplication. I have not worked with FileMaker Pro for several years but found it to be very unwieldy for my needs which were …
We tried Salesforce, which was expensive and not as customizable as Access. QuickBase also was pricey compared to already having an MS license with the existing package, and QuickBase was not very intuitive. The other option was an open source version which was less intuitive …
Microsoft Access is much easier to understand and use than SAP. There are a lot of menus in SAP which can be very difficult to navigate. If you are familiar with Microsoft Word/Excel it is very similar and should be easy to learn. Also maintaining databases in Access is much …
Microsoft Access databases are more suitable for us because we are a smaller team. It's easy for us to export the reporting. It's also easy for people to create their own databases as well! Microsoft Access is honestly a one-stop-shop for us, and we figured we were not at a …
Does what it promises well, for instance, as a sidecar for the main enterprise data warehouse. However, I would not recommend using it as the main data warehouse, particularly due to the heavy business logic, as other dedicated tools are more suitable for ensuring scalable operations in terms of change management and multi-developer adjustments.
Having worked at startups, I can say Microsoft Access is most suited for their needs. Some of the reasons for that can be the ease and ability to create tables, design an entity-relationship diagram, define the relationship between different tables, feeding data into the tables, and retrieving data. All of this can be curated very easily into a process for small to medium-size enterprises. But a serious limitation can be observed where Access does not provide better features for large-scale companies. Another limitation is for companies where Mac is used as work computers.
One good aspect of Microsoft Access is how the software can be customized for different applications. This is very useful because we are able to use this software for multiple applications, which makes it cost-friendly.
Another strong point of Microsoft Access is the skill required to customize, the amount of programming required is less than most other database programs. This is good for a beginner looking to get into database management.
Microsoft Access is one of the more cost-friendly database applications, and most of the time it comes with Microsoft Office. Other database programs can be expensive and not as easy to use.
I and the rest of my team will renew our Microsoft Access in the future because we use and maintain many different applications and databases created using Microsoft Access so we will need to maintain them in the future. Additionally, it is a standard at our place of work so it is at $0 cost to us to use. Another reason for renewing Microsoft Access is that we just don' t have the resources needed to extend into a network of users so we need to remain a single-desktop application at this time.
As with other cloud tools, users must learn a new terminology to navigate the various tools and configurations, and understand Google Cloud's configuration structure to perform even the most basic operations. So the learning curve is quite steep, but after a few months, it gets easier to maintain.
Microsoft Access is easy to use. It is compatible with spreadsheets. It is a very good data management tool. There is scope to save a large amount of data in one place. For using this database, one does not need much training, can be shared among multiple users. This database has to sort and filtering features which seem to be very useful.
GCP support in general requires a support agreement. For small organizations like us, this is not affordable or reasonable. It would help if Google had a support mechanism for smaller organizations. It was a steep learning curve for us because this was our first entry into the cloud database world. Better documentation also would have helped.
While I have never contacted Microsoft directly for product support, for some reason there's a real prejudice against MS Access among most IT support professionals. They are usually discouraging when it comes to using MS Access. Most of this is due to their lack of understanding of MS Access and how it can improve one's productivity. If Microsoft invested more resources towards enhancing and promoting the use of MS Access then maybe things would be different.
Unlike other products, Google Cloud SQL has very flexible features that allow it to be selected for a free trial account so that the product can be analyzed and tested before purchasing it. Integration capabilities with most of the web services tools are easier regarding Google Cloud SQL with its nature and support.
Excel is a fantastic - robust application that can do so much so easily. Its easy to train and understand. However - excel does not provide a reporting function and that is typically where we will suggest a move to [Microsoft] Access. [Microsoft] Access requires a little more knowledge of data manipulation.
Microsoft Access has had a mostly positive impact on our business objectives in that most of our work is funded by grants and those grants need reports with data about our projects. Microsoft Access makes getting and organizing that data very easy.
Another positive is that since it is built on an Excel backbone, Excel files can be easily imported into Microsoft Access and also it is easy to export Microsoft Access reports, data sheets, etc. into Excel and some other programs as well. That might help more people who already use Excel learn how to work in a database.
I can't really think of a negative impact other than not many people at my workplace have ever used or understand how to use a database. Most people tend to use Excel rather than a database, like Microsoft Access.