Apache Cassandra vs. IBM watsonx.data vs. MySQL

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Cassandra
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Cassandra is a no-SQL database from Apache.N/A
IBM watsonx.data
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Watsonx.data is presented as an open, hybrid and governed data store that makes it possible for enterprises to scale analytics and AI with a fit-for-purpose data store, built on an open lakehouse architecture, supported by querying, governance and open data formats to access and share data.N/A
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
Pricing
Apache CassandraIBM watsonx.dataMySQL
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CassandraIBM watsonx.dataMySQL
Free Trial
NoYesNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache CassandraIBM watsonx.dataMySQL
Considered Multiple Products
Cassandra
Chose Apache Cassandra
Cassandra is the only NoSQL database I have extensive experience with. In terms of other open source database solutions, I can say that I like Cassandra as much or equally as traditional Oracle MySQL, and a lot more than PostgresSQL. The decision to use Cassandra was driven by …
Chose Apache 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 …
Chose Apache Cassandra

These are the features which makes Cassandra different from others:

  • Cassandra is a distributed datastore, with a built-in coordinator. This means that requests are intelligently forwarded to the correct node.
  • It is generally very fast, and especially shines with write heavy …
Chose Apache Cassandra
We also evaluated mySQL and mongoDB. Both of them have their strengths and weaknesses but they are less suited for storing massive amounts of time series data. In addition, they are not elastic by nature and we required a "future-proof" solution as it was difficult to estimate …
IBM watsonx.data

No answer on this topic

MySQL
Chose MySQL
Of course compare to no SQL databases it's slower but there is a completely different use case for them... In my opinion it is better than PostgreSQL, it's easier to configure and has the same performance, or approximately the same. Of course Oracle Database is a way bigger …
Chose MySQL
Comparing MongoDB vs MySQL performance is difficult, since both management systems are extremely useful and the core differences underly their basic operations and initial approach. However, MongoDB vs MySQL is a hot argument that has been going on for a while now: mature …
Chose MySQL
We have used Oracle and DB2 and both of them are used to store huge amount of data. MySQL is used for reporting purposes in our organization.
Chose MySQL
Oracle is very mature and best in its class. However the cost is much higher. MySQL is a good alternative option.
Chose MySQL
If you are looking for a relational database (depending on your app), MySQL is a good place to start. MongoDB and Cassandra are NoSQL options (very powerful). I am more inclined towards PostgreSQL as it's more scalable over time. MySQL was bought by Oracle and the community …
Features
Apache CassandraIBM watsonx.dataMySQL
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Apache Cassandra
8.0
5 Ratings
11% below category average
IBM watsonx.data
-
Ratings
MySQL
-
Ratings
Performance8.55 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Availability8.85 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Concurrency7.65 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Security8.05 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability9.55 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Data model flexibility6.75 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility7.05 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Apache CassandraIBM watsonx.dataMySQL
Small Businesses
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10

No answers on this topic

InfluxDB
InfluxDB
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
Snowflake
Snowflake
Score 8.7 out of 10
SQLite
SQLite
Score 8.0 out of 10
Enterprises
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
Snowflake
Snowflake
Score 8.7 out of 10
SQLite
SQLite
Score 8.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache CassandraIBM watsonx.dataMySQL
Likelihood to Recommend
6.0
(16 ratings)
8.7
(27 ratings)
8.4
(146 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.6
(16 ratings)
7.7
(3 ratings)
9.0
(5 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(1 ratings)
7.6
(9 ratings)
7.9
(18 ratings)
Support Rating
7.0
(1 ratings)
9.3
(3 ratings)
9.0
(3 ratings)
Implementation Rating
7.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache CassandraIBM watsonx.dataMySQL
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.
Read full review
IBM
Real-time transaction processing (both reads and writes) is where DataStax Enterprise shines. It's very fast with linear scalability should more resources be needed. Additional nodes are added very easily. DataStax Enterprise on its own (without Solr or Spark enabled) isn't well suited for long complicated reports. The data model doesn't support joining multiple tables together which is common in BI reporting.
Read full review
Oracle
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.
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.
Read full review
IBM
  • Datastax Cassandra provides high availability and good performance for a database. It is built on top of open source Apache Cassandra so you can always somewhat understand the internal functioning and why.
  • Datastax Cassandra is fairly simple to start using, you can install/setup your cluster and be productive in 1 day.
  • Datastax Cassandra provides a lot of good detailed documentation, and when starting, the detailed free videos on the Datastax site and documentation are very helpful.
  • Datastax Enterprise Edition of Cassandra provides more tools, good support, and quick response SLA for enterprise business support.
Read full review
Oracle
  • Stable - it just runs, with minimal downtime or errors
  • Fast - well-structured data is quickly written and read
  • Secure - MySQL is easy to keep data secure from people and applications that shouldn't see it
  • Easy to use - SQL is industry standard so no problems with adding, editing and reading data stored in MySQL
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.
Read full review
IBM
  • Integration complexity with Security Tools while watsonx.Data is well-suited for native tools, but integration with third-party security tools requires custom connectors or manual ETL pipelines. which leads to an increase in setup time.
  • User interface and query time can be improved.
Read full review
Oracle
  • 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.
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.
Read full review
IBM
As an open source technology Cassandra can be readily used with or without any commercial support. DataStax provides value-added services and features, and in the end it is up to individual situations to strike a balance between the desirability of such support/service versus the associated cost.
Read full review
Oracle
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.
Read full review
Usability
Apache
It’s great tool but it can be complicated when it comes administration and maintenance.
Read full review
IBM
DataStax has a good community built around it and has amazing scalability options. Though the initial setup is a bit costly, in the long run, it makes up for it. It also has powerful monitoring tools and a clean UI.
Read full review
Oracle
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.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
Apache
No answers on this topic
IBM
good recovery features
Read full review
Oracle
No answers on this topic
Performance
Apache
No answers on this topic
IBM
scalable product
Read full review
Oracle
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Apache
Sometimes instead giving straight answer, we ‘re getting transfered to talk professional service.
Read full review
IBM
We have had a few situations where we caused an outage or something has gone wrong and we are able to get a support person to offer live help within minutes. The escalation process is excellent - the best I've seen - and the support team is incredibly strong. Outside of emergencies, the team is very helpful with general questions and working through data model exercises and the subscription I believe still comes with some hours to help get the data model reviewed.
Read full review
Oracle
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.
Read full review
Online Training
Apache
No answers on this topic
IBM
easy to follow documentation, support is there when needed
Read full review
Oracle
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
Apache
No answers on this topic
IBM
use saas service
Read full review
Oracle
1. Estimate your data size. 2. Test, test, and test.
Read full review
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
Read full review
IBM
Pinecone and IBM watsonx.data (Milvus in our case) both work great as a full-managed cloud-based vector database. We selected IBM watsonx.data because it integrates well with watson.ai and is a little more beginner friendly than Pinecone, but I think both are great anyway.
Read full review
Oracle
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.
Read full review
Scalability
Apache
No answers on this topic
IBM
cognos integration works great
Read full review
Oracle
No answers on this topic
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.
Read full review
IBM
  • for one automation project, we managed to cut cloud storage costs by a third through IBM watsonx.data's lakehouse optimization
  • data integration projects have had a 20 % reduction in turnaround times. Can only imagine how that will improve with the Claude partnership
Read full review
Oracle
  • As it is an open source solution through community solution, we can use it in a multitude of projects without cost license
  • The acquisition by Oracle makes you need to contract support for the enterprise version
  • If you have knowledge about oracle databases, you can get more out of the enterprise version
Read full review
ScreenShots