What users are saying about
44 Ratings

Microsoft Access

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
515 Ratings
44 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.3 out of 101

Microsoft Access

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
515 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 7.4 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Amazon Aurora

Amazon Aurora should be considered for those who need a fast and reliable cloud database service. It includes the main features of a MySQL database, using the latest trends in architectural principals. It ensures out-of-the-box fault-tolerance and high scalability. It is also very important for those who don’t want to worry about features and security updates. As the price is higher than a standard MySQL for instance, it should only be considered for higher applications where performance and scalability is really important.
Vasco Mendes profile photo

Microsoft Access

Microsoft Access is great for integrating with .NET for both stand-alone and web-based solutions. Since it is so widely-used, it is fairly easy to find people in your existing work pool who can use it, and also easier to find new applicants who can hit the ground running with this technology. It is terrific for small businesses or small departments within larger organizations who want to be in control of their own simple projects and prototyping. It is well-suited for environments where security is locked down but employees still need to accomplish simple programming tasks.
No photo available

Pros

  • Aurora's throughput is great compared to MySQL and MariaDB.
  • Aurora Serverless's pay-per-use makes it very inexpensive when used for services that are idle most of the day. This helps us adhere to the one-database-per-microservice pattern; cost is no longer a concern.
  • Aurora is mostly managed. Administering databases will never be a competitive advantage for my company.
  • Aurora has great integration with other AWS products, like DMS.
No photo available
  • Organization - Its layout is particularly conducive to organizing data and is very user-friendly. Working with data is simple so long as you have a working knowledge of either building your own forms/reports or SQL.
  • Integration - Since Access is an Office product, it integrates nicely with Excel. This allows for not only the freedom of designing the data and reports you generate but also that it is quick to pick up as most people have some experience with Excel.
  • Support - Since there is already a large compendium of help and useful tricks/tips for Office products, there is always an answer to whatever question you may have or outcome that you are trying to achieve.
Joseph R. Sweeney profile photo

Cons

  • Cold-starts are part of the Aurora Serverless compromise, but they are painful nonetheless.
  • We're accustomed to sub-second metering for AWS Lambda; Aurora Serverless has 1-minute minimums for resources.
  • Aurora Serverless is compatible with MySQL 5.6. MySQL 5.6 lacks many of the features PostgreSQL users will expect.
No photo available
  • Long loading times for larger datasets - Depending on the data with which you are working, it can take a while to open and save documents. Additionally, if you are working with multiple datasets that are joined, this is all saved into one file and seems to make the issue worse.
  • Learning curve - Without a relatively strong background in either database management or SQL, it can be difficult to adapt to Access. The layout isn't very intuitive for new users and so it takes time to learn the ins and outs.
  • File size limit - Access has a 2GB file size limit, which, for the large majority of cases is not a problem. For those instances where you are working with multiple large datasets, though, this will be an issue unless you link multiple Access databases.
Joseph R. Sweeney profile photo

Likelihood to Renew

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic
Microsoft Access9.4
Based on 16 answers
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.
Alyssa Moy, MBA, PMP profile photo

Usability

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic
Microsoft Access7.0
Based on 3 answers
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.
No photo available

Reliability and Availability

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic
Microsoft Access8.0
Based on 1 answer
I don't think the program has ever failed me. It is one of those programs where there is always a solution if you know where to look.
No photo available

Support

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic
Microsoft Access7.5
Based on 2 answers
I intend to elaborate very soon via another update, after checking some of my notes.
Fred Abraham, P.Eng profile photo

Alternatives Considered

Aurora MySQL 5.6 lacks many of the features of PostgreSQL, and even more recent versions of MySQL or MariaDB. You may be able to tolerate these deficiencies; simple OLTP use-cases will be served adequately. Like RDS and DynamoDB, Aurora is managed and integrates well with other AWS products. Amazon Aurora Serverless can be much less expensive than RDS, however.
No photo available
While not having the graphic capabilities, Access is better than Constant Contact for customer database. It has more search capabilities.
No photo available

Return on Investment

  • Aurora Serverless has allowed us to inexpensively implement best-practices for our microservices architecture.
  • Aurora is mostly managed; our engineers can focus on features instead of database administration.
  • Aurora is capable of high throughput. Speed is not our first priority, but we still benefit from it.
No photo available
  • Positive Impact. It gives some of the users their own personal database.
  • Another Positive Impact. The user learns some of the database development without having to be certified in a particular software.
  • Negative Impact. Not a real business object solution to me.
No photo available

Pricing Details

Amazon Aurora

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

Microsoft Access

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details