IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
143 Ratings
335 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.8 out of 101

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
143 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.2 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Amazon Web Services

Amazon Web Services is well suited for companies or organizations that need to run specific applications or virtual services on servers. The cost-per-server ratio makes this ideal for testing and live deployment scenarios. It is especially ideal for smaller to medium size IT development teams. If you are looking to just set up a website, for example, AWS may not be ideal unless you are having it custom built.
Nathan Sichilongo profile photo

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

If you have a small development team that working with one of the support Compose products, it's a great fit. We've been working on the product for 2 yrs now and we're just now getting to the point where the cost/benefit of the managed vs. self-hosted approach is even worth considering.However, if your tech stack includes a product Compose doesn't offer (like Apache Kafka for instance) it means that you'll either need to find a different provider for those services or manage that portion of the tech stack yourself. It's a minor problem, but the only negative thing I have to say about Compose
Carlo Quiñonez profile photo

Feature Rating Comparison

Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)

Amazon Web Services
8.3
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime
Amazon Web Services
8.9
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Dynamic scaling
Amazon Web Services
9.1
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Elastic load balancing
Amazon Web Services
8.7
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Pre-configured templates
Amazon Web Services
7.6
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Monitoring tools
Amazon Web Services
7.5
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Pre-defined machine images
Amazon Web Services
7.9
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Operating system support
Amazon Web Services
7.9
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
Security controls
Amazon Web Services
8.4
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

Database-as-a-Service

Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.3
Automatic software patching
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.5
Database scalability
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.6
Automated backups
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.6
Database security provisions
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.2
Monitoring and metrics
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
6.8
Automatic host deployment
Amazon Web Services
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)
8.8

Pros

  • The ability to scale vertically and horizontally easily.
  • The ability to get server notifications
  • Ease of use within the AWS GUI
No photo available
  • Creating production-ready deployments is easy
  • The database consoles are intuitive and easy to use for new users
  • Creating and restoring backups is easy
  • Migrating data between deployments is done through the GUI
Carlo Quiñonez profile photo

Cons

  • Occasionally, we disagree with their roadmap priorities. For example, we really needed Content-Based Routing added to ELB to support our multitenant implementation. The AWS architects agreed that it was a mainstream, valuable request and hinted that they were trying to get it onto the roadmap, but 15 months later there's still no sign of it. I'm sure they have their reasons, but it's a strange and annoying hole in an otherwise invaluable service.
  • AWS has had well-publicized outages that have broken the promise of true zone (datacenter) isolation. This was supposed to have been impossible - if you had instances running in two zones within a region, you thought had a solid survivability story. We were forced to react by building out additional redundancy that increased costs beyond our original design estimates. AWS claims to have resolved the problem, but we haven't been confident enough to spin down the extra servers yet.
  • There are annoying resource limits, presumably in place to prevent hackers from allocating huge numbers of resources on a compromised account. The problem is that raising the resource limits requires manual action to be taken, and can have a severe impact on production software if your ops team isn't meticulous in checking the limits. As of the last time I checked, these limits weren't available via API, making it impossible to create alarms whenever we get close to exceeding our resource limits.
  • AWS is relatively infamous for their poor communications during outages. Their status page will occasionally go without an update for 45 minutes, while half your customers are dead in the water. This is - obviously - infuriating.
Marc Schriftman profile photo
  • It'd be nice if there was an easier way to set up a low cost or free testing or staging environment to match with the production environment. A "clone to staging" feature would be amazing.
Kevin Newman profile photo

Likelihood to Renew

Amazon Web Services9.4
Based on 10 answers
Support at AWS is great! The cost is low. Their business model is sound. They tend to benefit us.
Doug Symes profile photo
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)9.0
Based on 2 answers
I am very fond of the features and reliability of the compose DaaS, however I could switch if I find same qualities for lower price.
No photo available

Usability

Amazon Web Services9.0
Based on 3 answers
The management console is the weak part of the service in my experience. It is adequate but slow.
No photo available
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)8.7
Based on 3 answers
It is great the only things I have stumbled upon is the non standard port 80 they use and sometimes expired SSL certificate.
No photo available

Reliability and Availability

Amazon Web Services9.0
Based on 1 answer
Availability is very good, with the exception of occasional spectacular outages.
No photo available
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Performance

AWS does not provide the raw performance that you can get by building your own custom infrastructure. However, it is often the case that the benefits of specialized, high-performance hardware do not necessarily outweigh the significant extra cost and risk. Performance as perceived by the user is very different from raw throughput.
No photo available
No answers on this topic

Support

Amazon Web Services3.0
Based on 3 answers
unless you paid the premium, no support at all
No photo available
IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)7.0
Based on 4 answers
Very slow response times and the responses have often not been satisfactory.
No photo available

Implementation

Amazon Web Services10.0
Based on 3 answers
The API's were very well documented and was Janova's main point of entry into the services.
Brian Lusenhop profile photo
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

We looked at Microsoft 365 Business because it's so popular. It's ease of use seemed attractive but it didn't have the agility or scalability we found in AWS. IBM Analytics Engine was far more complex than we needed and very expensive. AWS is an operations tool for us so the reporting we get for the quality of service we wanted, is perfect as is.
Jackie Bassett profile photo
Other database used for the application is Heroku postgres. For our type of application it is majorly a question of data structure, security, availability and price. Compose rates well in the three first ones, less well in the last one
No photo available

Return on Investment

  • Profitability: We've a team of very hands-on engineers and what they would need to build what we now get from AWS, would not have had the level of profitability we get with AWS. At first, our inhouse team really wanted this work inhouse. Now, they're very grateful it's not. Billing is always accurate and automated with full justification in every report. We can plan our growth far more accurately.
  • Flexibility: We can onboard new customers in an instant. We can give greater service levels to our current customers, just as quickly and dynamically too, if their needs change.
  • Ease of use: seriously, one or two phone calls is pretty much all we've ever had to make when our needs change and it's been that easy for the last 4 or 5 years now.
Jackie Bassett profile photo
  • The cost for a service with this level of reliability has been outstanding.
  • The one time that we had an issue, which was back when the product was still MongoHQ, they credited us with a month of service to make things right even though the problem really had minimal impact on our business.
David Hart profile photo

Pricing Details

Amazon Web Services

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

Amazon Web Services More Information

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose)

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

IBM Cloud Databases (formerly Compose) More Information