Amazon SageMaker vs. Amazon Redshift

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon SageMaker
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Amazon SageMaker enables developers and data scientists to quickly and easily build, train, and deploy machine learning models at any scale. Amazon SageMaker removes all the barriers that typically slow down developers who want to use machine learning.N/A
Amazon Redshift
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Redshift is a hosted data warehouse solution, from Amazon Web Services.
$0.24
per GB per month
Pricing
Amazon SageMakerAmazon Redshift
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Redshift Managed Storage
$0.24
per GB per month
Current Generation
$0.25 - $13.04
per hour
Previous Generation
$0.25 - $4.08
per hour
Redshift Spectrum
$5.00
per terabyte of data scanned
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon SageMakerAmazon Redshift
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon SageMakerAmazon Redshift
Considered Both Products
Amazon SageMaker
Chose Amazon SageMaker
Amazon SageMaker comes with other supportive services like S3, SQS, and a vast variety of servers on EC2. It's very comfortable to manage the process and also support the end application by one click hosting option. Also, it charges on the base of what you use and how long you …
Chose Amazon SageMaker
Amazon SageMaker took the heavy lifting out of building and creating models. It allowed for our organization to use our current system for integration and essentially added on a feature to help all levels of Data scientists and IT professionals in our department and company as …
Chose Amazon SageMaker
We have not invested in another machine learning software at this time and so far this has proved very successful with our machine learning teams. As mentioned, I am training these individuals simply on the fundamentals of the software and using it/customizing it for their …
Amazon Redshift
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshifts has fewer features but at the same time, you also have some gains once it is running on AWS Cloud and it is really easy to set up. Besides that, in our case, it is a bit cheaper and we don't really need the extra features that you can find on Snowflake. Another …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift, BigQuery, and Snowflake are all fully managed data warehouse services that are designed to handle large volumes of structured data and support business intelligence and analytics efforts. However, Amazon Redshift has the upper hand with its cost-effective …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Biggest advantage of Amazon Redshift is it's part of the aws ecosystem. When tuned well it is also very cheap compared to something like snowflake. And compared to spark or databricks, Amazon Redshift is a solid warehouse that's well suited for tabular data. We use it for user …
Chose Amazon Redshift
We evaluated [Amazon] Redshift vs BigQuery vs Amazon EMR, back in 2014.
Back then BigQuery cost was slightly higher than that of [Amazon] Redshift price structure.
Amazon EMR, needs lots more management (Admin tasks) and EMR is designed to be ephemeral and not designed to be a …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Redshift is better cost wise and also since the whole ecosystem is set in AWS, it is wise to use redshift
Chose Amazon Redshift
Redshift leapfrogged Hive back when Hive was trying to figure out how to implement indexes, providing a more stable, standardized (postgres), easy to use (any postgres client), easier to administer, and scalable solution for querying server logs and raw usage data.

Now, …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift is one of the fastest service offerings available in the market now. Plus you get an advantage of using a cutting edge compute service offering from AWS. Other technologies are fast but not as good as Amazon Redshift, I would say. Our business is interested in …
Chose Amazon Redshift
1. Redshift has better compression (automated) consuming less space then competitors
2. Automated Vacuum Delete for having consistent performance
3. AWS introduced ra3 node types for simple separation of compute and storage
Chose Amazon Redshift
Its definitely an improvement on all fronts for our business needs. Again, our MySQL server was really slow and we needed a more efficient solution. It was a major upgrade, but it is much more expensive than an in house server. It was expected but I'd say that lots of headaches …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift supports multiple data formats including multiple structured data formats. And it is easy to implement a cluster if you do not have knowledge of data lake solution. Also when you do not need a lot of resources, you can just scale down so you do not have to spend …
Chose Amazon Redshift
The best advantage for us was the easy way to integrate our current solution in AWS to Amazon Redshift.
Chose Amazon Redshift
Google BigQuery, PostgreSQL and Snowflake
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift has a better UI, hands down. And it is easy to integrate with bigger tools like Talend. It has many issues when it comes to understanding the architect perspective like Toad, which has a better UI for architect data together. However, that is because we are not …
Chose Amazon Redshift
We like Snowflake for its separation of computing and storage and also the separation of data warehouse different users. We replaced Redshift with Snowflake. However, Snowflake is great for its pay for performance kind of methodology.
Chose Amazon Redshift
Azure SQL Database was discarded because of a less attractive licensing, costs, plus its integrates poorly with many of the Azure offerings as say Azure Data Factory - it is not a true ETL yet. Also, the rest of the tools used were of Open Source type and it did not look like a …
Chose Amazon Redshift
The main reason we chose Redshift was because of the cost-effectiveness of running and maintaining the warehouse.
Chose Amazon Redshift
It works on the cloud and we use the platform Dbeaver which is very unique and easy to maintain. There are very limited tools of this kind but the security issues are pretty high within those tools.
Chose Amazon Redshift
As our applications are hosted on AWS service, Redshift is the best option for us. Also, it provide a near to real-time performance on limited datasets and less complex queries. High availability is the major concern for any growing business and AWS is the best option for this. …
Chose Amazon Redshift
We are currently on Redshift, because it was out before Snowflake. However, Snowflake looks promising. It's the new shiny toy that gives options that Redshift does not provide for. The big thing is that storage and compute can be scaled separately, whereas you cannot do that in …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Most of our stack is on AWS, so while Snowflake and BigQuery was a viable option from a performance perspective, it was easier to integrate with RedShift. We considered hosting SQL Server on AWS or using Amazon RDS (Postgres or MySQL), however, the self-service aspect of …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Snowflake supports semi-structured data types and provided solutions to manage/process the semi-structured data. It supported sharing data between the different accounts and makes it easy in the scale and scale down process. Snowflake doesn't limit users on the database.
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift is much easier to set up and start using. It interacts well with the PostgreSQL client (psql) and shares certain basic data dictionary, and people familiar with PostgreSQL feel right at home. The cluster is part of AWS services offering, and it works well with …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Some organizations use PostgreSQL as an OLAP store. PostgreSQL offers a modern SQL dialect, data types, and features that Redshift lacks. RDS is a great managed PostgreSQL product. However, PostgreSQL is a poor choice for a data warehouse. It's row-oriented storage requires …
Best Alternatives
Amazon SageMakerAmazon Redshift
Small Businesses
InterSystems IRIS
InterSystems IRIS
Score 8.1 out of 10
Google BigQuery
Google BigQuery
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
InterSystems IRIS
InterSystems IRIS
Score 8.1 out of 10
Snowflake
Snowflake
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Dataiku
Dataiku
Score 8.5 out of 10
Snowflake
Snowflake
Score 8.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon SageMakerAmazon Redshift
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon SageMakerAmazon Redshift
Likelihood to Recommend
Amazon Sagemaker suits well in areas of data science and Machine learnings where medium to high-volume data is to be used for analysis. For a lean and platform agnostic deployment, it provides kubernetes integration to containerize the solution and deploy on any platform. It is one of the best solution for technical users for training Machine Learning models.
Read full review
If the number of connections is expected to be low, but the amounts of data are large or projected to grow it is a good solutions especially if there is previous exposure to PostgreSQL. Speaking of Postgres, Redshift is based on several versions old releases of PostgreSQL so the developers would not be able to take advantage of some of the newer SQL language features. The queries need some fine-tuning still, indexing is not provided, but playing with sorting keys becomes necessary. Lastly, there is no notion of the Primary Key in Redshift so the business must be prepared to explain why duplication occurred (must be vigilant for)
Read full review
Pros
  • SageMaker is useful as a managed Jupyter notebook server. Using the notebook instances' IAM roles to grant access to private S3 buckets and other AWS resources is great. Using SageMaker's lifecycle scripts and AWS Secrets Manager to inject connection strings and other secrets is great.
  • SageMaker is good at serving models. The interface it provides is often clunky, but a managed, auto-scaling model server is powerful.
  • SageMaker is opinionated about versioning machine learning models and useful if you agree with its opinions.
Read full review
  • Redshift is fully managed. Small teams do not have the resources to maintain a cluster. CloudWatch metrics are provided out-of-the-box, and it is easy to configure alarms.
  • Redshift's console allows you to easily inspect and manage queries, and manage the performance of the cluster.
  • Redshift is ubiquitous; many products (e.g., ETL services) integrate with it out-of-the-box.
  • Writing .csvs to S3 and querying them through Redshift Spectrum is convenient.
Read full review
Cons
  • Searching and descriptions can be easier to read and interpret.
  • Training modules and customer service training representative could make on boarding employees easier.
Read full review
  • It could benefit from adding data integrity and programming tools common to other database management systems.
  • Amazon Redshift is based on PostgreSQL 8.0.2. That version of PostgreSQL was released in December 2006. While PostgreSQL was much improved since then, the new features were not implemented in Redshift. Many basic features are missing from it.
  • Primary keys can be declared but not enforced. Referential integrity (foreign keys) can be declared but not enforced. UNIQUE and CHECK constraints are not supported and cannot be declared.
  • IDENTITY can be declared on a column, and Redshift will put unique values into it. However: IDENTITY values in the newly inserted rows won’t be incremental or sequential. To implement a sequential number, you need to write your own custom code.
  • There are no stored procedures in Redshift. We are writing SQL script files, and then parsing and running them one statement at a time from a Python program. This also enabled us to implement execution-time error logging.
  • In SQL scripts, to check for the row count of affected rows, a complicated join query against some system tables or views has to be executed.
  • Data Control Language (DCL) does not exist. No statements like IF, WHILE, DO, RAISERROR, etc.
  • On performance of views… Views do not “pass-through” a query parameter which is a potential problem for performance.
  • When selecting against a view with the WHERE clause outside of the view, the inner query of the view will be executed first without consideration for the WHERE clause, and only then the WHERE clause will be applied.
  • Certain clauses of SQL work many times faster than other clauses. So be careful and test your statements for performance earlier rather than later, especially if working with a large data set.
  • There was a situation when DELETE FROM JOIN was unacceptably slow. Replacing JOIN with the USING clause made DELETE instantaneous.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
Overall it serves all our aspects of data management like data cleaning, data manipulation, and data reporting on the cloud platform. We can create stored procedures and triggers in it very easily as all the options are self suggested in it. We can easily attach the results of ARS to the other tools as well for drawing the statistical results.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
The support was great and helped us in a timely fashion. We did use a lot of online forums as well, but the official documentation was an ongoing one, and it did take more time for us to look through it. We would have probably chosen a competitor product had it not been for the great support
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
We have not invested in another machine learning software at this time and so far this has proved very successful with our machine learning teams. As mentioned, I am training these individuals simply on the fundamentals of the software and using it/customizing it for their needs. It has been very easy to do this and has gotten great reviews across the organization so far.
Read full review
We evaluated [Amazon] Redshift vs BigQuery vs Amazon EMR, back in 2014. Back then BigQuery cost was slightly higher than that of [Amazon] Redshift price structure. Amazon EMR, needs lots more management (Admin tasks) and EMR is designed to be ephemeral and not designed to be a data store. [Amazon] Redshift was ideal with the price structure, performance and ROI[.]
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Using SageMaker, we can truly implement 'fail early, learn fast,' using an on-demand server for training.
  • It also saves your money from investing in a physical server for very rare use.
  • However, the pricing is high, but it will cost you only for what you use.
Read full review
  • It allows for an almost seamless integration of our data which can then be used by other departments for analytical purposes.
  • No in house resources are needed for keeping the data alive and performing backup/migration tasks of the data in its end state.
Read full review
ScreenShots