Google Cloud SQL vs. RavenDB

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Google Cloud SQL
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Google Cloud SQL is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) with the capability and functionality of MySQL.
$0
per core hour
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
Google Cloud SQLRavenDB
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
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Cloud SQLRavenDB
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsPricing 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 SQLRavenDB
Considered Both Products
Google Cloud SQL
Chose Google Cloud SQL
Google Cloud SQL ended up being less expensive, have a greater support team and offer a much better interface
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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.
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
- 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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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.
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
We use the MySQL managed database that Cloud SQL offers, and it has all of the functionality of on-prem MySQL, plus it is managed.
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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.
Chose Google Cloud SQL
DigitalOcean managed database is relatively less costly compared to Google Cloud SQL database.

Google Cloud SQL service is well integrated with other Google Cloud Platform services such as IAM which enables fine grain access to team members.
Chose Google Cloud SQL
Simple to implement as SaaS.
Chose Google Cloud SQL
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 …
Chose Google Cloud SQL
Kind of similar features provided against RDS. Used this because of transactional db
Chose Google Cloud SQL
Google's solution for database is, at least for our team, easier to implement and maintain than Amazon's offer.
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
Google Cloud SQLRavenDB
Database-as-a-Service
Comparison of Database-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Google Cloud SQL
9.3
Ratings
7% above category average
RavenDB
-
Ratings
Automatic software patching9.60 Ratings00 Ratings
Database scalability9.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Automated backups9.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Database security provisions9.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Monitoring and metrics8.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Automatic host deployment9.00 Ratings00 Ratings
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Google Cloud SQL
-
Ratings
RavenDB
9.1
Ratings
3% above category average
Performance00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Availability00 Ratings8.90 Ratings
Concurrency00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Security00 Ratings9.20 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings9.60 Ratings
Data model flexibility00 Ratings9.90 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility00 Ratings9.40 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Google Cloud SQLRavenDB
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
Google Cloud SQLRavenDB
Likelihood to Recommend
9.5
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(0 ratings)
9.5
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
6.4
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
6.5
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Google Cloud SQLRavenDB
Likelihood to Recommend
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.
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
  • Very easy to use and migrate existing database systems to Google Cloud SQL system
  • Easy to query with real-time query assessment as well as processing metrics to help optimize the queries
  • No need to learn any other querying language (like in Hadoop ecosystem), as SQL works pretty fine
  • Easy-to-use GCP portal to type in queries and see the results on the screen (no need to go on command line )
  • Easy to set up
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
  • Increasing support for more database engines may enable a wider range of application needs to be met.
  • Implementing and updating cutting-edge security features on a constant basis.
  • Streamlining and enhancing the tools for transferring data to Google Cloud SQL from on-premises databases or other cloud providers.
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
It fits the current needs and bandwith of out lean organization.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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 first one is it's performance is very good and it comes up with different solution.
  • Security can be improved for external resources or the schemas which are selected in it.
  • It can be more fragile so one can use it in the business purposes and this will make it a great product.
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

Google Cloud SQL Screenshots

Screenshot of migrating to a fully managed database solution - Self-managing a database, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, or SQL Server, can be inefficient and expensive, with significant effort around patching, hardware maintenance, backups, and tuning. Migrating to a fully managed solution can be done using a Database Migration Service with minimal downtime.Screenshot of data-driven application development - Cloud SQL accelerates application development via integration with the larger ecosystem of Google Cloud services, Google partners, and the open source community.