Amazon DynamoDB is a cloud-native, NoSQL, serverless database service.
$0
capacity unit per hour
MySQL
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
MySQL is a popular open-source relational and embedded database, now owned by Oracle.
N/A
Microsoft SQL Server
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft SQL Server is a relational database.
$1,418
Per License
Pricing
Amazon DynamoDB
MySQL
Microsoft SQL Server
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
Subscription
$1,418.00
Per License
Enterprise
$13,748.00
Per License
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon DynamoDB
MySQL
Microsoft SQL Server
Free Trial
No
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon DynamoDB
MySQL
Microsoft SQL Server
Considered Multiple Products
Amazon DynamoDB
Verified User
Engineer
Chose Amazon DynamoDB
I've used SQL and NoSQL solutions, such as MongoDB and MySQL. I would not choose Dynamo to be a primary datastore and one of the others is likely a better option. Dynamo is good as almost viewed as a large cache. If you want something that is more supported and easier to work …
Other all SQL Databases are based on the traditional Schema Structure and Amazon DynamoDB is NoSQL so you don't need to generate the SQL Schemas. You can store the data whatever you want, whenever you want. You can store data in structured or non-structured any way you want. If …
MongoDB was basically the first approach we used but because there was concern that some data may miss we were reluctant to use it. Oracle Database and SQL Server was our second approach but it was throttling so in last we tested out Amazon DynamoDB and it met our requirement.
DynamoDB is a great supplemental data store compared to SQL Server. We use SQL Server extensively for our primary application, however, it is sometimes overkill for small projects that just need a datastore. DynamoDB fits that bill better and is a great option for projects …
Compared to running your own on-prem SQL infrastructure Amazon Dynamo is easier to set up, faster and more reliable as well as being cheaper in the long run.
We did not use or evaluated any. DynamoDB was our first choice for this particular use case and we were glad we made this choice. Also, knowing the AWS infrastructure and having DynamoDB integrated into the AWS environment helped us greatly with learning DynamoDB and being able …
As a fully managed NoSQL service, DynamoDB provides a lot of functionality for relatively low cost. Scaling, sharding, throughput performance is managed for you, and you only pay for the bandwidth you provision.
While evaluating Cassandra, PostgreSQL, MongoDB and DynamoDB we found Cassandra and DynamoDB being well suited for us. At the same time we didn't have the luxury of large team or devops so it came down to Amazon DynamoDB. As a small team we are glad to go forward with this …
I've been using MySQL for so long that it's my go-to RDBMS. I really like MySQL Workbench in conjunction with MySQL. I've experimented with Amazon DynamoDB in my personal time.
I have also used Microsoft SQL Server. It is quite similar to MySQL. However, MySQL has always been my first choice, I have been using it for a very long time. I have also worked with PostgreSQL in a DevOps project. It is good too but a bit hard to learn and understand.
Having used both PostgreSQL and Microsoft SQL Server, I can tell that MySQL performs admirably in a Linux setting. When compared to Microsoft SQL Server, the extra benefit is the minimal or nonexistent licence fee. We find that MySQL's programming interface is particularly …
In terms of capabilities, Microsoft SQL Server is one of the leaders in the database market. It provides a lot of features for high availability, disaster recovery, performance and security. The primary reason why MySQL 8 was chosen was due to the open source nature of the …
Is not a drop-in replacement for any of the things listed above. MySQL has it's purpose and use-cases, same as those. It's a low-cost solution for high read/low write applications and works very well when used in the right circumstances. Support can be purchased from various …
Rest all the big brand databases incure high licensing cost giving almost the same value that MySQL is giving being an open source database. Other databases like Oracle, MS SQL servers need extensive resource along with a huge team to manage those databases. However, thats not …
We chose MySQL because of its open-source nature and its compatibility with various systems, languages, and databases. It is easy to use and fast. Additionally, it has been in the market for more than 30 years now which makes it a reliable option when compared to its …
As I have been commenting in our company, we have solved our performance problems and responses obtaining speed in the queries occupies less disk space, in addition to its price and all the tools of great Scope it possesses.
We let go SQL server as We don't want to use Windows server and bare the cost of Windows licensing.
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose MySQL
MySQL is open source and reduces development costs drastically.
Verified User
Professional
Chose MySQL
MongoDB has a dynamic schema for how data is stored in 'documents' whereas MySQL is more structured with tables, columns, and rows. MongoDB was built for high availability whereas MySQL can be a challenge when it comes to replication of the data and making everything redundant …
Microsoft SQL and SQLite i have used for different scenarios. SQLite is very small database which is more easy to work with low profile devices like mobiles. MySQL is not suitable for that level and MSSQL mainly comparable with MYSQL. MSSQL has complex installations and …
So the main reason i would stack up Mysql from rest of the others is that it is open source which can be helpful for doing any POC on the products and learning new technologies and it is also compatible with all other softwares like Microsoft SQL serve and Postgre Sql
I would say that in a Linux environment MySQL works great compared to both PostgreSQL and MS SQL. The added benefit compared to MS SQL is the low or absent licensing cost. As we use it mainly from PHP the programming interface is great for MySQL. PostgreSQL has many of the …
MySQL is relatively easier to use and than PostgreSQL or SQL Server; it's also cheap to use in production compared to SQL Server. For a beginner who wants to ship something quickly, MySQL is really suited for it.
MySQL offers best conditions for a rapid adoption at the organization. Also because it's free software, you can scale up in implementations without worrying about licenses fees.
MySQL has most of the functionality of other, very costly, alternatives without the big price tag. It is open-source with improvements coming at a relatively good rate. It is not as robust as those other offerings and can have some challenging points at scale for large …
Microsoft SQL can be considered as an enterprise level software since it is recommended for large businesses. Microsoft SQL has some unique categories like big data processing, DBMS, etc. whereas MySQL is not capable of handling such features. I guess this is how these both …
MySQL has a GUI which makes it easy for developers to work upon. It has all features like replication, backup and crash recovery. Also since it is freely available it becomes commercially feasible for people to use this DB. Also MySQL can be easily used as a back end for the …
Verified User
Analyst
Chose MySQL
MySQL provides the option to reduce support and maintenance cost when P0 Level 1 support is not really needed for databases used for noncritical use cases and workloads. Other versions that include Microsoft SQL, Amazon RDS, etc don't provide such options and are overkill. …
Familiarity: With MySQL, I know what to expect, and that goes a long way. Also, since it adheres fairly close to SQL '92, It's relatively easy to construct queries, views, etc. without a steep learning curve. Also, RAM usage is important (this is true of any RDBMS …
The major factor in favor of Microsoft SQL Server as compared to Oracle DBMS is its cost for small to medium enterprises. For larger organizations, Oracle DBMS's value is in being a bit more competitive but when it comes to smaller organizations, Microsft SQL Server is much …
SQL Server is better for large databases containing structured relational data. It makes it easy to group and order, to sum and create tables of data from any data stored in a table or related tables. While Dynamodb is very good at STORING huge amounts of unstructured data, it …
We used MySQL for some smaller projects because this RDBMS works better with a small amount of data and a lot of young workers, especially students, can handle MySQL very well because they learned it at the university. One important thing to keep in mind is that MySQL is …
[Microsoft] SQL Server has a much better community and professional support and is overall just a more reliable system with Microsoft behind it. I've used MySQL in the past and SQL Server has just become more comfortable for me and is my go to RDBMS.
The first database application taught when I was in school was Microsoft SQL Server. Microsoft SQL Server was used where I first started, so I had the opportunity to improve myself in MySQL. SQL is also used in my current workplace. It is widely used in very large projects due …
Verified User
Technician
Chose Microsoft SQL Server
Microsoft SQL is slower than MySQL and Access but far more feature-rich and reliable. Access is almost obsolete nowadays, so not too many people are considering it, but unless budget or an open-source ethos is a factor, Microsoft SQL is superior in every way. Many commonly used …
You could consider i did use MySQL since i worked with some websites that were using a MySQL database. I could not give a side by side comparision since i don't use those like i use the Microsoft SQL , but so far it worked well. I prefer Microsoft SQL due to support and info …
UI of the Microsoft SQL Server makes it easy to use and learn. The better technical support and documentation give it an extra edge over other databases. The Microsoft ecosystem provides additional advantages, as we can seamlessly use other Microsoft products, such as Power …
Microsoft SQL Server is faster and more compatible, but it does cost more, so you're paying for those features. I use the others in many other places where critical transaction processing time and compatibility aren't of great concern.
Microsoft SQL Server providers a more user friendly experience when it comes to Microsoft SQL Server components management via its unique SQL Server management Studio. It is also a production ready, resilient, highly available and tested database management system (DBMS). The …
MS SQL Server is easier to use compared to other RDBMS which really speeds up development time and relatively easier to find a problem when it happens as well. It's also pretty quick to run a query, especially in a large table make it pretty convenient if we need to monitor the …
It just boils down to why learn anther product when you are going to run across it so seldom. Developers determine what database engine I am going to need so I just tend to pick products for implementation that use a well know product that has lots of support resources …
[Microsoft SQL Server] offers a full solution, Inhouse Applications and hosted application continue to use SQL as backend database. Allows easy creation of development environments and continuous feature release.
The free version is very powerfull and easy to install and use for small companies. Going to Professional and Standard, gives you all the support and the flexibility needed. It is known within the Database Administrator crew, and you can get support very easily over the …
Native to Windows and being required for other MS apps puts it above others in terms of usage. If we were not heavily dependent on Microsoft applications or OS, we might have considered other database solutions. It's an expensive solutions but it is a solid reliable solution. …
Microsoft SQL Server is still the industry standard for the type of development we do, and the types of applications that we use. Almost every developer or analyst we hire has at least a reasonable grounding in the use of SQL servers, and it is almost universally compatible …
For our enterprise software, SQL Server has more predictable functionality and tools than the other products we've examined. If we have a question or a problem, it's quite likely someone else has had to deal with the same thing, and it's possible to find help or tips online …
For a single vendor solution, SQL Server is the best choice in my opinion. Most of the other solutions do not offer the full range of products in a single package. Also, for a largely Microsoft shop, there are additional integrations which increase the value proposition. …
Microsoft SQL Server is a DBMS that can be used in any situation, from small projects to big ones, and the latest versions now can be used in several OS platforms. It is a great product with many features over its competitors. It's a mature and robust product. It's easy and …
Compared to free versions, SQL Server just blows away the free/open-source software. Things just run faster, and better, and at less overhead. This is truer and truer with the later versions. Microsoft just invests so much into research and development into their product. And …
Amazon Redshift is a cloud-based data warehouse. It does what it says it will do, but my experience is that for a cloud data warehouse, it is a little slow and I'd hope for performance to be insanely fast. Plus, it is also very costly. Same performance for much less cost in …
Microsoft SQL Server stacks up pretty well - it is well established and has a large userbase. The main reason we selected Microsoft SQL Server over any other RDMS was because of its well established place in the market for such tools and large number of users (easy to hire …
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
MySQL is best suited for applications on platform like high-traffic content-driven websites, small-scale web apps, data warehouses which regards light analytical workloads. However its less suited for areas like enterprise data warehouse, OLAP cubes, large-scale reporting, applications requiring flexible or semi-structured data like event logging systems, product configurations, dynamic forms.
Microsoft SQL is ubiquitous, while MySQL runs under the hood all over the place. Microsoft SQL is the platform taught in colleges and certification courses and is the one most likely to be used by businesses because it is backed by Microsoft. Its interface is friendly (well, as pleasant as SQL can be) and has been used by so many for so long that resources are freely available if you encounter any issues.
Learning curve: is big. Newbies will face problems in understanding the platform initially. However, with plenty of online resources, one can easily find solutions to problems and learn on the go.
Backup and restore: MySQL is not very seamless. Although the data is never ruptured or missed, the process involved is not very much user-friendly. Maybe, a new command-line interface for only the backup-restore functionality shall be set up again to make this very important step much easier to perform and maintain.
Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise edition has a high cost but is the only edition which supports SQL Always On Availability Groups. It would be nice to include this feature in the Standard version.
Licensing of Microsoft SQL Server is a quite complex matter, it would be good to simplify licensing in the future. For example, per core vs per user CAL licensing, as well as complex licensing scenarios in the Cloud and on Edge locations.
It would be good to include native tools for converting Oracle, DB2, Postgresql and MySQL/MariaDB databases (schema and data) for import into Microsoft SQL Server.
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.
For teaching Databases and SQL, I would definitely continue to use MySQL. It provides a good, solid foundation to learn about databases. Also to learn about the SQL language and how it works with the creation, insertion, deletion, updating, and manipulation of data, tables, and databases. This SQL language is a foundation and can be used to learn many other database related concepts.
We understand that the Microsoft SQL Server will continue to advance, offering the same robust and reliable platform while adding new features that enable us, as a software center, to create a superior product. That provides excellent performance while reducing the hardware requirements and the total cost of ownership of our solution.
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.
I give MySQL a 9/10 overall because I really like it but I feel like there are a lot of tech people who would hate it if I gave it a 10/10. I've never had any problems with it or reached any of its limitations but I know a few people who have so I can't give it a 10/10 based on those complaints.
SQL Server mostly 'just works' or generates error messages to help you sort out the trouble. You can usually count on the product to get the job done and keep an eye on your potential mistakes. Interaction with other Microsoft products makes operating as a Windows user pretty straight forward. Digging through the multitude of dialogs and wizards can be a pain, but the answer is usually there somewhere.
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.
We have never contacted MySQL enterprise support team for any issues related to MySQL. This is because we have been using primarily the MySQL Server community edition and have been using the MySQL support forums for any questions and practical guidance that we needed before and during the technical implementations. Overall, the support community has been very helpful and allowed us to make the most out of the community edition.
We managed to handle most of our problems by looking into Microsoft's official documentation that has everything explained and almost every function has an example that illustrates in detail how a particular functionality works. Just like PowerShell has the ability to show you an example of how some cmdlet works, that is the case also here, and in my opinion, it is a very good practice and I like it.
Other than SQL taking quite a bit of time to actually install there are no problems with installation. Even on hardware that has good performance SQL can still take close to an hour to install a typical server with management and reporting services.
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.
MongoDB has a dynamic schema for how data is stored in 'documents' whereas MySQL is more structured with tables, columns, and rows. MongoDB was built for high availability whereas MySQL can be a challenge when it comes to replication of the data and making everything redundant in the event of a DR or outage.
[Microsoft] SQL Server has a much better community and professional support and is overall just a more reliable system with Microsoft behind it. I've used MySQL in the past and SQL Server has just become more comfortable for me and is my go to RDBMS.
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.
Increased accuracy - We went from multiple users having different versions of an Excel spreadsheet to a single source of truth for our reporting.
Increased Efficiency - We can now generate reports at any time from a single source rather than multiple users spending their time collating data and generating reports.
Improved Security - Enterprise level security on a dedicated server rather than financial files on multiple laptop hard drives.