Amazon DynamoDB is a cloud-native, NoSQL, serverless database service.
$0
capacity unit per hour
IBM Cloud Databases
Score 8.1 out of 10
N/A
IBM Cloud Databases are open source data stores for enterprise application development. Built on a Kubernetes foundation, they offer a database platform for serverless applications. They are designed to scale storage and compute resources seamlessly without being constrained by the limits of a single server. Natively integrated and available in the IBM Cloud console, these databases are now available through a consistent consumption, pricing, and interaction model. They aim to provide a cohesive…
N/A
MongoDB
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
MongoDB is an open source document-oriented database system. It is part of the NoSQL family of database systems. Instead of storing data in tables as is done in a "classical" relational database, MongoDB stores structured data as JSON-like documents with dynamic schemas (MongoDB calls the format BSON), making the integration of data in certain types of applications easier and faster.
$0.10
million reads
Pricing
Amazon DynamoDB
IBM Cloud Databases
MongoDB
Editions & Modules
Provisioned - Read Operation
$0.00013
capacity unit per hour
Provisioned - Write Operation
$0.00065
capacity unit per hour
Provisioned - Global Tables
$0.000975
per Read Capacity
On-Demand Streams
$0.02
per 100,000 read operations
Provisioned - Streams
$0.02
per 100,000 read operations
On-Demand Data Requests Outside AWS Regions
$0.09
per GB
Provisioned - Data Requests Outside AWS Regions
$0.09
per GB
On-Demand Snapshot
$0.10
per GB per month
Provisioned - Snapshot
$0.10
per GB per month
On-Demand Restoring a Backup
$0.15
per GB
Provisioned - Restoring a Backup
$0.15
per GB
On-Demand Point-in-Time Recovery
$0.20
per GB per month
Provisioned - Point-in-Time Recovery
$0.20
per GB per month
On-Demand Read Operation
$0.25
per million requests
On-Demand Data Stored
$0.25
per GB per month
Provisioned - Data Stored
$0.25
per GB per month
On-Demand - Write Operation
$1.25
per million requests
On-Demand Global Tables
$1.875
per million write operations replicated
No answers on this topic
Shared
$0
per month
Serverless
$0.10million reads
million reads
Dedicated
$57
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon DynamoDB
IBM Cloud Databases
MongoDB
Free Trial
No
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
Fully managed, global cloud database on AWS, Azure, and GCP
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon DynamoDB
IBM Cloud Databases
MongoDB
Considered Multiple Products
Amazon DynamoDB
Verified User
Director
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
More flexible and easier to get started with than RDS, but, in my opinion, much worse monitoring/cost and query/modeling complexity than MongoDB
MongoDB vs. Amazon DynamoDB:• MongoDB requires more human management than DynamoDB, which is a fully managed service.• DynamoDB's scalability is automatic, whereas MongoDB's horizontal scaling may require more work.• When compared to DynamoDB, MongoDB offers more extensive data …
DynamoDB provided an easy to use, schema-less, out of the box solution that can be used to spin up a full working implementation very easily. It doesn't require extra knowledge such as MongoDB query functions
Lesser flexibility but better performance, and more predictable development support are the key points where Amazon DynamoDB comes out on top, when compared to MongoDB.
We are always assembling our solutions on AWS and DynamoDB is a better fit for us because of its simplicity. DynamoDB has its ow sets of triggers that make this an integrated solution on AWS. Besides, we wanted to use a key-value solution for our simple edge DB, and we didn't …
DynamoDB's scalability is more automated and effortless, making it easier to handle rapid growth. Other tools require more manual configuration while DynamoDB simplifies database administration. Also, DynamoDB provides strong consistency while other tools like MongoDB and Apache…
MongoDB has some performance issues and can get corrupted from time to time and has needed to be rebuilt. We have not had that experience while using DynamoDB.
For our use case, we needed a noSQL that would work with AWS Lambdas of specific parts of the internal web applications. We optimized billing and uses , diversified databases for various parts; so it’s not very expensive.
Verified User
Engineer
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
i think both depends on usuability and app requirement
Performance at high scales is better and the cost at high scales is less. If one has a ton of data generated and has to work their way through it, I think Amazon DynamoDB should the go-to database. There are no compromises when it comes to performance at a huge scale. With any …
The Amazon Web Services managed Amazon DynamoDB has excellent features which makes it stand out from all the others in market right now. The management ease it offers is far superior than its competitors and on top of that the on-demand pricing model is an advantage which works …
DynamoDB offers strong consistency, more fine-grained control over read and write capacities, and integrates seamlessly with other AWS services. DynamoDB is designed for horizontal scalability and high throughput, making it a better choice for applications with rapidly changing …
The automation is much more subtle and it performs way better for internet-scale applications. No matter the number of connections, the performance doesn't dip even a bit.
Mongo services are outside of our Vpc and are on a different network. Since most of our infra is on AWS, dynamo by AWS was a natural choice. Most of our engineers are familiar with AWS sdk and the console so that brought in a much smaller learning curve for our engineering team
It seamlessly integrates with Lambda, simplifying the deployment and management of serverless architecture. Both Lambda and DynamoDB are designed are highly scalable. Lambda functions can be triggered by various AWS services and events, such as changes in DynamoDB tables which …
I tried MLab and was not a fan of how the UI worked on their control panel. It felt outdated and cumbersome. They offered less backup solutions for the price point as well. In fact, you had to contact them with a ticket if you wanted access to a daily backup. Anything over that …
MongoDB is the primary db we use, and Meteor is the primary application framework. Configuring MongoDB to fully support Meteor oplog tailing is a challenge - and when we started looking, Compose was those only MongoDB provider that had turnkey support for Meteor.
We use Amazon Aurora as our primary datastore and use IBM Compose Mongo as an alternative only when Aurora does not cover the use case well. Amazon DynamoDB looks good but doesn't have the same wealth of libraries and support which makes MongoDB easy to use and therefore was …
We previously hosted our own Redis and RabbitMQ cluster. Before switching to IBM Compose we evaluated Redis Lab, Scalegrid, AWS ElastiCache, CloudAMQP and others. We still host our core database (MongoDB) ourselves.
IBM cloud database has a lot of features than Amazon DynamoDB. This is my personal opinion. But I can't say Amazon DynamoDB is a bad one. But IBM cloud database has a lot of securities and file storage and backup features than Amazon DynamoDB. But both are good in their own …
I have used Amazon DynamoDm and compared to IBM Compose, I would say IBM Compose is affordable, easy to use and very fast as well. I would opt IBM Cloud Databases given the two choices
All our databases are hosted on Compose. We haven't seen a reason to switch providers, however, we have compared with some others and Compose seems to be the best from a cost and reliability standpoint.
While at the time, Amazon RDS did/does not create Mongo databases, I was able to set up many with PostgreSQL databases with the same ease as IBM Compose. However, IBM compose does seem to offer a more intuitive application control panel. Amazon RDS costs run on a server …
We selected Compose because we initially thought that they would provide great support, and that they would bring encryption at rest within months. That has not materialized yet.
We also thought that the cost, while far from being the lowest, was reasonable.
Well for MySQL we had to use Amazon because of the pricing structure. We are using Mongo on Compose and it has been pretty good to us for the past 2 years. We are moving all of our databases to Amazon for the customer support and pricing structure that is competitive to Compose,
We have one instance of mLab that has been equally easy to scale as Compose, but with the added benefit of extensive logging and performance monitoring tools, including an index suggester. All modern cloud db providers seem to offer more of this type of functionality at this …
Other options are lower priced, however IBM Compose has by far the best interface for managing and editing data within the database. It also has many forms of databases for us to deploy, beyond what we are currently using. So, in the event we need to add other services, we can …
We initially selected IBM Compose because it was easy to use and cost-effective. We switched to mLab when we need to scale and have dedicated clusters.
Mongo Atlas - at the moment it looks better. It has 3.6 (Compose stuck at 3.4). Lower pricing (it seems). AWS Dynamo DB etc - I decided rather quickly not to use this, mostly for lack of adequate documentation.
MySQL is a great for querying related data, but it's unable to store structured data and has a fixed schema. Also SQL can be non-intuitive. DynamoDB, CouchDB and Redis all make querying the data quite difficult and lack important features. The problem CouchDB tries to solve is …
In our early development days we weighed NoSQL databases like MongoDB with RDBMS solutions like MySQL. We were more familiar with MySQL from past experience but also were wary of painful data migrations that slowed down development iterations and increased the risk of outages …
Your default choice should not be MongoDB in my opinion. Most user-facing systems are relational by nature so a well known and reliable SQL database would be easier to maintain and simpler to develop long term. If you highly value speed of development go with Firebase. If you …
It does not belong to certain cloud platforms. MongoDB is an independent program that works with any cloud platform including Amazon Web Services and the Google Cloud Platform. For companies who want to maintain a cloud agnostic structure, MongoDB is a great choice for NoSQL …
We tend to choose MongoDB when we're faced with a particular situation: we know that we need a NoSQL database in general, and want an open-source implementation that allows us to prevent against platform lock-in. Amazon's new DocumentDB product even allows us to choose to use …
MongoDB was the most full-featured NoSQL database we evaluated - that offered atomic transactions at a document level, built-in HA & DR, open source, robust queries, and enterprise level support.
Other platforms had specific parts of what we were looking for - MongoDB had it all.
Features
Amazon DynamoDB
IBM Cloud Databases
MongoDB
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Amazon DynamoDB
9.2
69 Ratings
3% above category average
IBM Cloud Databases
-
Ratings
MongoDB
10.0
39 Ratings
12% above category average
Performance
9.368 Ratings
00 Ratings
10.039 Ratings
Availability
9.569 Ratings
00 Ratings
10.039 Ratings
Concurrency
9.067 Ratings
00 Ratings
10.039 Ratings
Security
9.269 Ratings
00 Ratings
10.039 Ratings
Scalability
9.468 Ratings
00 Ratings
10.039 Ratings
Data model flexibility
8.266 Ratings
00 Ratings
10.039 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility
10.023 Ratings
00 Ratings
10.038 Ratings
Database-as-a-Service
Comparison of Database-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
It’s great for server less and real-time applications. It would be great for gaming and mobile apps. However, if you need relational database and have fixed budget, do not use it. While budget can be managed, you need to be careful. Also this is not a tool for storing big data, there are other wide-column database types you could use for it ins the ad
Less Appropriate Scenario: 1) Small Scale or Low Budget Projects 2) Organizations with limited expertise in cloud technologies may find the learning curve steep, especially if they are not familiar with the IBM Cloud platform 3) If database requirements are highly dynamic and change frequently, the comprehensive features and management provided by IBM Cloud Databases might be overkill. A more flexible, self-managed solution could be preferable for adapting to rapid changes.
If asked by a colleague I would highly recommend MongoDB. MongoDB provides incredible flexibility and is quick and easy to set up. It also provides extensive documentation which is very useful for someone new to the tool. Though I've used it for years and still referenced the docs often. From my experience and the use cases I've worked on, I'd suggest using it anywhere that needs a fast, efficient storage space for non-relational data. If a relational database is needed then another tool would be more apt.
The ease of setup was effortless. For anyone with development experience, a few simple questions such as name and login data will get you set up.
The web application to manage cluster settings, billing settings and even introspect the data was simple and most importantly worked all the time. This can not always be said for web interfaces of other products.
Being a JSON language optimizes the response time of a query, you can directly build a query logic from the same service
You can install a local, database-based environment rather than the non-relational real-time bases such a firebase does not allow, the local environment is paramount since you can work without relying on the internet.
Forming collections in Mango is relatively simple, you do not need to know of query to work with it, since it has a simple graphic environment that allows you to manage databases for those who are not experts in console management.
Better cost reports, before just increasing to another tier, thus increasing the price. This is critical for early stage startups, where budget is tight.
Add more data center options. As a comparison, a similar service, Aiven.io has dozen more options than Compose (basically all big cloud providers). We moved from AWS to Digital Ocean, which made us stop using Compose, since Compose forces us to be either on IBM or AWS.
An aggregate pipeline can be a bit overwhelming as a newcomer.
There's still no real concept of joins with references/foreign keys, although the aggregate framework has a feature that is close.
Database management/dev ops can still be time-consuming if rolling your own deployments. (Thankfully there are plenty of providers like Compose or even MongoDB's own Atlas that helps take care of the nitty-gritty.
It's core to our business, we couldn't survive without it. We use it to drive everything from FTP logins to processing stories and delivering them to clients. It's reliable and easy to query from all of our pipeline services. Integration with things like AWS Lambda makes it easy to trigger events and run code whenever something changes in the database.
IBM is our trusted partner which never failed to meet our expectations. Stability, efficiency, usability and security is a must have for our business which is fully provided by IBM Cloud Databases
I am looking forward to increasing our SaaS subscriptions such that I get to experience global replica sets, working in reads from secondaries, and what not. Can't wait to be able to exploit some of the power that the "Big Boys" use MongoDB for.
Functionally, DynamoDB has the features needed to use it. The interface is not as easy to use, which impacts its usability. Being familiar with AWS in general is helpful in understanding the interface, however it would be better if the interface more closely aligned with traditional tools for managing datastores.
IBM Cloud Databases' pricing structure is easy to understand, and if you choose the right product, you can operate your system at minimal cost. Although there is ample documentation available, there doesn't seem to be a user community running on it, so specific usage know-how and troubleshooting can sometimes take longer than expected.
NoSQL database systems such as MongoDB lack graphical interfaces by default and therefore to improve usability it is necessary to install third-party applications to see more visually the schemas and stored documents. In addition, these tools also allow us to visualize the commands to be executed for each operation.
It works very well across all the regions and response time is also very quick due to AWS's internal data transfer. Plus if your product requires HIPPA or some other regulations needs to be followed, you can easily replicate the DB into multiple regions and they manage all by it's own.
Support is helpful enough, but we haven't always had questions answered in a satisfactory manner. At one time we realized that Compose had stopped taking database snapshots on its two-per-day schedule, and had in fact not taken one for many days. Support recognized the problem and it was fixed, but the lack of proactive checks and the inability to share exactly what happened has caused us to look elsewhere for production work loads
Finding support from local companies can be difficult. There were times when the local company could not find a solution and we reached a solution by getting support globally. If a good local company is found, it will overcome all your problems with its global support.
While the setup and configuration of MongoDB is pretty straight forward, having a vendor that performs automatic backups and scales the cluster automatically is very convenient. If you do not have a system administrator or DBA familiar with MongoDB on hand, it's a very good idea to use a 3rd party vendor that specializes in MongoDB hosting. The value is very well worth it over hosting it yourself since the cost is often reasonable among providers.
The only thing that can be compared to DynamoDB from the selected services can be Aurora. It is just that we use Aurora for High-Performance requirements as it can be 6 times faster than normal RDS DB. Both of them have served as well in the required scenario and we are very happy with most of the AWS services.
The reason why I choose IBM Cloud Databases is that the IBM cloud toolset is already being used in other functions of the company and by using IBM Cloud Databases, the other cloud tools are better embedded and integrated. If the company is set to use amazon tools, I would go for rds.
We have [measured] the speed in reading/write operations in high load and finally select the winner = MongoDBWe have [not] too much data but in case there will be 10 [times] more we need Cassandra. Cassandra's storage engine provides constant-time writes no matter how big your data set grows. For analytics, MongoDB provides a custom map/reduce implementation; Cassandra provides native Hadoop support.
I have taken one point away due to its size limits. In case the application requires queries, it becomes really complicated to read and write data. When it comes to extremely large data sets such as the case in my company, a third-party logistics company, where huge amount of data is generated on a daily basis, even though the scalability is good, it becomes difficult to manage all the data due to limits.
Some developers see DynamoDB and try to fit problems to it, instead of picking the best solution for a given problem. This is true of any newer tool that people are trying to adopt.
It has allowed us to add more scalability to some of our systems.
As with any new technology there was a ramp up/rework phase as we learned best practices.
Open Source w/ reasonable support costs have a direct, positive impact on the ROI (we moved away from large, monolithic, locked in licensing models)
You do have to balance the necessary level of HA & DR with the number of servers required to scale up and scale out. Servers cost money - so DR & HR doesn't come for free (even though it's built into the architecture of MongoDB