TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Cassandra

    Score9 out of 10
    N/ACassandra is a no-SQL database from Apache.N/A

    HBase

    Score7.3 out of 10
    N/AThe Apache HBase project's goal is the hosting of very large tables -- billions of rows X millions of columns -- atop clusters of commodity hardware. Apache HBase is an open-source, distributed, versioned, non-relational database modeled after Google's Bigtable.N/A
    Pricing
    CassandraHBase
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    CassandraHBase
    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
    CassandraHBase
    Considered Both Products
    Apache
    Chose Cassandra
    We evaluated MongoDB also, but don't like the single point failure possibility. The HBase coupled us too tightly to the Hadoop world while we prefer more technical flexibility. Also HBase is designed for "cold"/old historical data lake use cases and is not typically used for …
    Incentivized
    Chose Cassandra
    Technology selection should be done based on the need and not based on buzz words in the market (google searching). If your data need flat file approach and more searchable based on index and partition keys, then it's better to go for Cassandra. Cassandra is a better choice …
    Incentivized
    Chose Cassandra
    Against HBase, writes were faster. Reads not so much. Also ability to store in other formats would be good (such as objects). Compared to aerospike, does not compare. Aerospike blows it out of water.
    Incentivized
    Chose Cassandra
    Apache Cassandra has the best of both worlds, it is a Java based NoSQL, linearly scalable, best in class tunable performance across different workloads, fault tolerant, distributed, masterless, time series database. We have used both Apache HBase and MongoDB for some use cases …
    Incentivized
    Chose Cassandra
    Four years ago, I needed to choose a web-scale database. Having used relational databases for years (PostgreSQL is my favorite), I needed something that could perform well at scale with no downtime. I considered VoltDB for its in-memory speed, but it's limited in scale. I …
    Incentivized
    Apache
    Chose HBase
    HBase is more secure. Easily scalable. HBase is for wide-column store while MongoDB is for document store. Triggers available in HBase while in Mongodb triggers are not available.
    Incentivized
    Chose HBase
    Hbase is more robust and scalable than other DBs around
    Incentivized
    Chose HBase
    Cassandra os great for writes. But with large datasets, depending, not as great as HBASE. Cassandra does support parquet now. HBase still performance issues. Cassandra has use cases of being used as time series. HBase, it fails miserably. GeoSpatial data, Hbase does work …
    Incentivized
    Chose HBase
    Typically, Cassandra is faster on reads and HBase is faster on writes. You use Cassandra when you want to use a website, HBase is just an overall good general use database engine. Cassandra has its own storage engine and HBase uses HDFS and all its benefits. MongoDB is …
    Incentivized
    Chose HBase
    These days I use Apache Cassandra more for even more scalability, good performance under different kind of workloads, and for providing highly available systems. Apache Cassandra also has connectors for Hadoop, Spark, and Solr.
    Incentivized
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Best Alternatives
    CassandraHBase
    Small Businesses
    No answers on this topic
    No answers on this topic
    Medium-sized Companies
    HBase
    Score7.3 out of 10
    Azure Cosmos DB
    Score9.1 out of 10
    Enterprises
    Azure Cosmos DB
    Score9.1 out of 10
    Cassandra
    Score9 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    CassandraHBase
    Likelihood to Recommend
    6.0
    (16 ratings)
    7.7
    (10 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    8.6
    (16 ratings)
    7.9
    (10 ratings)
    Usability
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Support Rating
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    7.0
    (1 ratings)
    -
    (0 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    CassandraHBase
    Likelihood to Recommend
    Apache
    Apache Cassandra is a NoSQL database and well suited where you need highly available, linearly scalable, tunable consistency and high performance across varying workloads. It has worked well for our use cases, and I shared my experiences to use it effectively at the last Cassandra summit! http://bit.ly/1Ok56TK It is a NoSQL database, finally you can tune it to be strongly consistent and successfully use it as such. However those are not usual patterns, as you negotiate on latency. It works well if you require that. If your use case needs strongly consistent environments with semantics of a relational database or if the use case needs a data warehouse, or if you need NoSQL with ACID transactions, Apache Cassandra may not be the optimum choice.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Apache
    Hbase is well suited for large organizations with millions of operations performing on tables, real-time lookup of records in a table, range queries, random reads and writes and online analytics operations. Hbase cannot be replaced for traditional databases as it cannot support all the features, CPU and memory intensive. Observed increased latency when using with MapReduce job joins.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    Apache
    • Continuous availability: as a fully distributed database (no master nodes), we can update nodes with rolling restarts and accommodate minor outages without impacting our customer services.
    • Linear scalability: for every unit of compute that you add, you get an equivalent unit of capacity. The same application can scale from a single developer's laptop to a web-scale service with billions of rows in a table.
    • Amazing performance: if you design your data model correctly, bearing in mind the queries you need to answer, you can get answers in milliseconds.
    • Time-series data: Cassandra excels at recording, processing, and retrieving time-series data. It's a simple matter to version everything and simply record what happens, rather than going back and editing things. Then, you can compute things from the recorded history.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Apache
    • Scalability. HBase can scale to trillions of records.
    • Fast. HBase is extremely fast to scan values or retrieve individual records by key.
    • HBase can be accessed by standard SQL via Apache Phoenix.
    • Integrated. I can easily store and retrieve data from HBase using Apache Spark.
    • It is easy to set up DR and backups.
    • Ingest. It is easy to ingest data into HBase via shell, Java, Apache NiFi, Storm, Spark, Flink, Python and other means.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    Apache
    • Cassandra runs on the JVM and therefor may require a lot of GC tuning for read/write intensive applications.
    • Requires manual periodic maintenance - for example it is recommended to run a cleanup on a regular basis.
    • There are a lot of knobs and buttons to configure the system. For many cases the default configuration will be sufficient, but if its not - you will need significant ramp up on the inner workings of Cassandra in order to effectively tune it.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Apache
    • There are very few commands in HBase.
    • Stored procedures functionality is not available so it should be implemented.
    • HBase is CPU and Memory intensive with large sequential input or output access while as Map Reduce jobs are primarily input or output bound with fixed memory. HBase integrated with Map-reduce jobs will result in random latencies.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    Apache
    I would recommend Cassandra DB to those who know their use case very well, as well as know how they are going to store and retrieve data. If you need a guarantee in data storage and retrieval, and a DB that can be linearly grown by adding nodes across availability zones and regions, then this is the database you should choose.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Apache
    There's really not anything else out there that I've seen comparable for my use cases. HBase has never proven me wrong. Some companies align their whole business on HBase and are moving all of their infrastructure from other database engines to HBase. It's also open source and has a very collaborative community.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Usability
    Apache
    It’s great tool but it can be complicated when it comes administration and maintenance.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Apache
    No answers on this topic
    Support Rating
    Apache
    Sometimes instead giving straight answer, we ‘re getting transfered to talk professional service.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Apache
    No answers on this topic
    Alternatives Considered
    Apache
    We evaluated MongoDB also, but don't like the single point failure possibility. The HBase coupled us too tightly to the Hadoop world while we prefer more technical flexibility. Also HBase is designed for "cold"/old historical data lake use cases and is not typically used for web and mobile applications due to its performance concern. Cassandra, by contrast, offers the availability and performance necessary for developing highly available applications. Furthermore, the Hadoop technology stack is typically deployed in a single location, while in the big international enterprise context, we demand the feasibility for deployment across countries and continents, hence finally we are favor of Cassandra
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Apache
    Cassandra os great for writes. But with large datasets, depending, not as great as HBASE. Cassandra does support parquet now. HBase still performance issues. Cassandra has use cases of being used as time series. HBase, it fails miserably. GeoSpatial data, Hbase does work to an extent. HA between the two are almost the same.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    Apache
    • I have no experience with this but from the blogs and news what I believe is that in businesses where there is high demand for scalability, Cassandra is a good choice to go for.
    • Since it works on CQL, it is quite familiar with SQL in understanding therefore it does not prevent a new employee to start in learning and having the Cassandra experience at an industrial level.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Apache
    • As Hbase is a noSql database, here we don't have transaction support and we cannot do many operations on the data.
    • Not having the feature of primary or a composite primary key is an issue as the architecture to be defined cannot be the same legacy type. Also the transaction concept is not applicable here.
    • The way data is printed on console is not so user-friendly. So we had to use some abstraction over HBase (eg apache phoenix) which means there is one new component to handle.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots