Couchbase Server vs. RavenDB

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Couchbase Server
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Couchbase Server is a cloud-native, distributed database that fuses the strengths of relational databases such as SQL and ACID transactions with JSON flexibility and scale that defines NoSQL. It is available as a service in commercial clouds and supports hybrid and private cloud deployments.N/A
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
Couchbase ServerRavenDB
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Couchbase ServerRavenDB
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
YesYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Couchbase ServerRavenDB
Considered Both Products
Couchbase Server
Chose Couchbase Server
It is optimized for interactive applications
Chose Couchbase Server
The project we are developing with Couchbase, was very inconsistent for few years of the beginning. We had to change data model multiple times. We knew this before starting the project. So we had to choose a NoSQL solution. We also wanted a syncing solution. After some research …
Chose Couchbase Server
I was not involved in the process of evaluating other products.
Chose Couchbase Server
Google Cloud Spanner meant "vendor lock-in". Yugabyte was pre-mature for us at the time. MySQL was not meant for the size of our data.
Chose Couchbase Server
Couchbase was mainly selected because it provided professional support, which was mandatory. I did not participate in the technical decisions.
Chose Couchbase Server
We have not used any other product like Couchbase
Chose Couchbase Server
Couchbase offers p2p sync and offline sync capabilities which gave an advantage over mongo. The sync has filter functions.
Chose Couchbase Server
Every data storage has it's own application domain. We use it in parallel
Chose Couchbase Server
Couchbase is scalable and very secure. It also offers better features and is very capable.
Chose Couchbase Server
MS Cosmos DB
AWS Storage
Google Storage
Chose Couchbase Server
[Couchbase] lite has been in use for a long time for a couple of applications.
Chose Couchbase Server
Couchbase could outperform it's competition considerably for database reads and writes. Full text searches were still faster in Elasticsearch but this is more of a feature than a base platform requirement for us.
Chose Couchbase Server
At the time, Couchbase seemed the most mature of the NoSQL products and would allow us to achieve the goal of improving data access times for our products and services, giving the most benefit to our customers. MySQL was starting to be the bottleneck in our system performance …
Chose Couchbase Server
Performance-wise Couchbase is much better than MongoDB.
Chose Couchbase Server
Couchbase being a NoSQL database does not require a fixed schema and allows more flexibility in the development phase.
Chose Couchbase Server
Easy to deploy and manage. Clustering and replication is fairly simple and straightforward. According to developers, Couchbase scored higher points compared to the other products that we evaluated.
Chose Couchbase Server
The Apache Cassandra was one type of product used in our company for a couple of use-cases.
The Aerospike is something we [analyzed] not so long time ago as an interesting alternative, due to its performance characteristics.
The Oracle Coherence was and is still being used for …
Chose Couchbase Server
Single console for managing multi-cluster and multi-cloud deployment options and [the] ability to secure and isolate database information in a secure environment to prevent undefined access is great. Analyzing and delivering information and fast access and processing data …
Chose Couchbase Server
Experience with DataStax Cassandra was seamless, but the cost and effort to support it was not justified. Also commercial process experience with Couchbase was much better. ActiveSpaces is a good technology for big TIBCO shop, but keeping with the lifecycle of it is not easy. I …
Chose Couchbase Server
A strategic company, upcoming products, enhanced concepts. Couchbase is a single platform offering many different smaller products together viz Full-Text Search, Analytics, Eventing, Indexing, Querying, Integration with other products.
I also look forward to knowing more about …
Chose Couchbase Server
None of the products mentioned above provided a seamless synchronization strategy that could be available on-premises at the time.
Chose Couchbase Server
I'm not qualified enough to make a meaningful comparison, but 2 years after, I hear regularly about issues on Mongo from the other teams, especially on the SRE side. On our side, not much to say, except that it works. Ram, CPU, disk behave like expected. Same for bandwidth. …
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
Couchbase ServerRavenDB
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Couchbase Server
8.9
Ratings
1% above category average
RavenDB
9.1
Ratings
3% above category average
Performance8.90 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Availability9.40 Ratings8.90 Ratings
Concurrency8.90 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Security9.00 Ratings9.20 Ratings
Scalability9.40 Ratings9.60 Ratings
Data model flexibility9.00 Ratings9.90 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility8.00 Ratings9.40 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Couchbase ServerRavenDB
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
Couchbase ServerRavenDB
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
2.1
(0 ratings)
9.5
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Availability
8.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
9.3
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.5
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
7.3
(0 ratings)
Configurability
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
7.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Couchbase ServerRavenDB
Likelihood to Recommend
Best suited when edge devices have interrupted internet connection. And Couchbase provides reliable data transfer. If used for attachment Couchbase has a very poor offering. A hard limit of 20 MB is not okay. They have the best conflict resolution but not so great query language on Couchbase lite.
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
  • Easy to store unstructured data and has great performance
  • Managing security is super easy which can be managed across different levels
  • UI is pretty simple to use and manage the cluster
  • Backup of the data is very easy and the restoration/recovery is fairly easy as well with the in-built tools.
  • Easy integration with elasticsearch for replication
  • It is fairly easy to scale up or scale down the cluster
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
  • Cluster sizing during the design phase can be improved, especially if the client lacks prior experience. Vendor consultants are very meticulous in order to provide best of class performance and response time, although some more real-world pragmatic approach is often needed.
  • Couchbase Lite 2 went thru a major revamp, which broke the compatibility of the applications with some features removed and other changed. That needed development teams working to refactor the applications.
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
I rarely actually use Couchbase Server, I just stay up-to-date with the features that it provides. However, when the need arises for a NoSQL datastore, then I will strongly consider it as an option
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
Couchbase has been quite a usable for our implementation. We had similar experience with our previous "trial" implementation, however it was short lived.
Couchbase has so far exceeded expectation. Our implementation team is more confident than ever before.
When we are Live for more than 6 months, I'm hoping to enhance this rating.
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
Performance
One of Couchbase’s greatest assets is its performance with large datasets. Properly set up with well-sized clusters, it is also highly reliable and scalable. User management could be better though, and security often feels like an afterthought. Couchbase has improved tremendously since we started using it, so I am sure that these issues will be ironed out.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
I haven't had many opportunities to request support, I will look forward to better the rating. We have technical development and integration team who reach out directly to TAM at Couchbase.
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
Couchbase could outperform it's competition considerably for database reads and writes. Full text searches were still faster in Elasticsearch but this is more of a feature than a base platform requirement for us.
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
Scalability
So far, the way that we mange and upgrade our clusters has be very smooth. It works like a dream when we use it in concert with AWS and their EC2 machines. Having access to powerful instances along side the Couchbase interface is amazing and allows us to do rebalances or maintenance without a worry
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
  • There have been several areas of our application [that] really needed an ACID compliant database (e.g. strong transactional guarantees) that we thought we could work around while using Couchbase. [In my opinion] that turned out to be a poor bet. You need to be certain that the specific characteristics of a NoSQL database fit your problem.
  • Couchbase does eliminate the need for schema upgrades completely. I.e no downtime or conversion windows as you migrate your data model, adding attributes, etc. This helped with the deployment timeframe associated with DB changes.
  • The database is (apparently) a bit more of a space/memory consumer than originally anticipated. During deployments, we received constant pressure from Couchbase consulting teams to eliminate/reduce the number of indexes, and this was because any mutations to docs in a bucket must check for impact against all indexes. More recent years have started to address this with their "collections" features, which helps isolate indexes to specific sub-groupings of documents.
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