Amazon DynamoDB vs. IBM Cloud Databases vs. MongoDB

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon DynamoDB
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
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 DynamoDBIBM Cloud DatabasesMongoDB
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 DynamoDBIBM Cloud DatabasesMongoDB
Free Trial
NoNoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsFully managed, global cloud database on AWS, Azure, and GCP
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon DynamoDBIBM Cloud DatabasesMongoDB
Considered Multiple Products
Amazon DynamoDB
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
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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 …
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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.
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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 …
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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…
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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.
Chose Amazon 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.
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
i think both depends on usuability and app requirement
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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 …
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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 …
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
Compare to other products its so easier to set up, meeting all of our business requirements and easy usable, highly efficient and scalable.
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
high scalability #single-digit latency. #so much flexile. #very easy to use. # low maintenance.#GLobal Access
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
Amazon DynamoDB seems to be more cost effective and easy to integrate with other aws services.
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
Haven't had a chance to use this up to an extent to be compared to DynamoDB.
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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 …
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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.
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
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 …
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
Because of it's access control features, quick scalability and high performance.
IBM Cloud Databases
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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 …
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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.

Since we wanted …
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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 …
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
Compose has the best interface for viewing data. Others have better pricing. Atlas has best metrics.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
It is pretty much the same only Compose offers many more database types.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
We evaluated several DBaaS providers, the thing that won out for Compose was its GUI which makes working with the database very easy.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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 …
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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,
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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 …
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
Compose has great scalability and had a good price when we decided to launch our product.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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 …
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
IBM Compose pricing is far more clear than Azure and Amazon. The web user interface is also very clear and simple.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
It feels very similar but Compose was there first. I haven't used MongoDB Atlas in anger yet but it does seem to be more comprehensive.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
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.
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
It has been a very long time, but at the time, Compose's customer support was incredible compared to MongoLab.
MongoDB
Chose MongoDB
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 …
Chose MongoDB
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 …
Chose MongoDB
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 …
Chose MongoDB
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 …
Chose MongoDB
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 …
Chose MongoDB
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 DynamoDBIBM Cloud DatabasesMongoDB
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
Performance9.368 Ratings00 Ratings10.039 Ratings
Availability9.569 Ratings00 Ratings10.039 Ratings
Concurrency9.067 Ratings00 Ratings10.039 Ratings
Security9.269 Ratings00 Ratings10.039 Ratings
Scalability9.468 Ratings00 Ratings10.039 Ratings
Data model flexibility8.266 Ratings00 Ratings10.039 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility10.023 Ratings00 Ratings10.038 Ratings
Database-as-a-Service
Comparison of Database-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Amazon DynamoDB
-
Ratings
IBM Cloud Databases
7.3
94 Ratings
15% below category average
MongoDB
-
Ratings
Automatic software patching00 Ratings8.577 Ratings00 Ratings
Database scalability00 Ratings9.988 Ratings00 Ratings
Automated backups00 Ratings7.091 Ratings00 Ratings
Database security provisions00 Ratings9.084 Ratings00 Ratings
Monitoring and metrics00 Ratings4.088 Ratings00 Ratings
Automatic host deployment00 Ratings5.369 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Amazon DynamoDBIBM Cloud DatabasesMongoDB
Small Businesses
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
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
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
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon DynamoDBIBM Cloud DatabasesMongoDB
Likelihood to Recommend
8.9
(79 ratings)
8.0
(96 ratings)
10.0
(79 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(34 ratings)
8.0
(7 ratings)
10.0
(67 ratings)
Usability
9.1
(4 ratings)
8.0
(7 ratings)
10.0
(15 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
Performance
9.1
(42 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
5.2
(4 ratings)
1.0
(10 ratings)
9.6
(13 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
8.4
(2 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.1
(42 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon DynamoDBIBM Cloud DatabasesMongoDB
Likelihood to Recommend
Amazon AWS
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
Read full review
IBM
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.
Read full review
MongoDB
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.
Read full review
Pros
Amazon AWS
  • To manage varying workloads, it enables users to increase capacity as necessary and decrease it as needed.
  • Users can take advantage of its auto-scaling, in-memory caching, and backup without paying for the services of a database administrator.
  • We can use it for low scale operations.
Read full review
IBM
  • 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.
Read full review
MongoDB
  • 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.
Read full review
Cons
Amazon AWS
  • Cost model may not be easy to control and may lead to higher costs if not carefully planned
  • Indexing may be a cost culprit when not planned, because it's not included on the data costs
  • The Query Language may not fulfill everybody's expectations, as it has less features than those of competitors.
Read full review
IBM
  • 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.
Read full review
MongoDB
  • 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.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Amazon AWS
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.
Read full review
IBM
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
Read full review
MongoDB
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.
Read full review
Usability
Amazon AWS
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.
Read full review
IBM
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.
Read full review
MongoDB
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.
Read full review
Performance
Amazon AWS
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.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
MongoDB
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Amazon AWS
I have not had to contact support for this service, however I have had to contact AWS for other services and their support has been good.
Read full review
IBM
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
Read full review
MongoDB
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.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
IBM
No answers on this topic
MongoDB
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.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Amazon AWS
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.
Read full review
IBM
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.
Read full review
MongoDB
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.
Read full review
Scalability
Amazon AWS
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.
Read full review
IBM
No answers on this topic
MongoDB
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
Amazon AWS
  • 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.
Read full review
IBM
  • Prove use cases prior to administering entire platform, obtain ROI faster
  • Able to achieve the technological components of our advanced analytics team without full scale purchase of AI platform
  • Developed several studies to prove out cloud Db value, speed to deploy
Read full review
MongoDB
  • 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
Read full review
ScreenShots

Amazon DynamoDB Screenshots

Screenshot of Amazon DynamoDB in the AWS Console

MongoDB Screenshots

Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of