Google Cloud SQL vs. Azure SQL Database

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
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 Cloud SQLAzure SQL Database
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
2 vCORE
$0.5044
Per Hour
6 vCORE
$1.5131
Per Hour
10 vCORE
$2.52
Per Hour
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Cloud SQLAzure SQL Database
Free Trial
YesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
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 SQLAzure SQL Database
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.
Azure SQL Database
Chose Azure SQL Database
We have selected it because we are using Azure Cloud and it is the best option for us to go ahead with Azure SQL Database.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
We looked at Google Cloud SQL and Amazon RDS services, but we did not want to switch to a different structure from the system we currently use.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
Amazon RDS for SQL Server is the best example to compare with Azure SQL Database since both provide a Microsoft SQL Engine to host your databases.

Amazon RDS for SQL is much more compatible with your on-premises databases than Azure SQL, the reason is that Amazon RDS for SQL …
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
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.
Chose Azure SQL Database
Azure SQL has a slight advantage over its rivals because it's developed by Microsoft, so it is well suited to professionals.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
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.
Chose Azure SQL Database
Very similar product. Our company preferred to remain in the Microsoft Software Suite.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
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.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
It reduces the business cost as it provides large storage capacity with massive speed. Data security is primary benefit which this product gives me.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Chose Azure SQL Database
AWS's solution would be an alternative. I felt since we're a Window shop and already had a small investment into Azure, it was a no brainer.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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.
Chose Azure SQL Database
If you are a company that is already invested in Microsoft technologies, then the Azure suite is a better fit than the Amazon suite.
Chose Azure SQL Database
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 …
Features
Google Cloud SQLAzure SQL Database
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
Azure SQL Database
9.2
Ratings
6% above category average
Automatic software patching9.60 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Database scalability9.50 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Automated backups9.70 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Database security provisions9.50 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Monitoring and metrics8.20 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Automatic host deployment9.00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Google Cloud SQLAzure SQL Database
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 SQLAzure SQL Database
Likelihood to Recommend
9.5
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
6.4
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
6.5
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Google Cloud SQLAzure SQL Database
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
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.
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
  • 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.
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
  • 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.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
It fits the current needs and bandwith of out lean organization.
Read full review
This is best solution as a DBA one could expect from a service provider and as a cloud service, it removes all your hassles.
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
It just works!
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
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.
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
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.
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
  • 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.
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.