Apache Cassandra vs. MongoDB

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
MongoDB
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
MongoDB is an open source document-oriented database system. It is part of the NoSQL family of database systems. Instead of storing data in tables as is done in a "classical" relational database, MongoDB stores structured data as JSON-like documents with dynamic schemas (MongoDB calls the format BSON), making the integration of data in certain types of applications easier and faster.
$0
per month
Pricing
Apache CassandraMongoDB
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Shared
$0
per month
Serverless
$0.10million reads
million reads
Dedicated
$57
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
CassandraMongoDB
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsFully managed, global cloud database on AWS, Azure, and GCP
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Apache CassandraMongoDB
Considered Both Products
Cassandra
Chose Cassandra
It was packaged with the vendor product we bought. Also, it’s good for high performance transactional systems. I'm part of our NoSQL team and Cassandra quickly became a favorite for developers with agile teams.
Chose Cassandra
DynamoDB is good and is also a truly global database as a service on AWS. However, if your organization is not using AWS, then Cassandra will provide a highly scalable and tuneable, consistent database.
Cassandra is also fault-tolerant and good for replication across multiple …
Chose Cassandra
Cassandra has its own use case. It performs very well as a data store. Data can be written to it at a high rate. It cannot be compared to traditional RDBMS like Oracle, because they all have their own usage. Even MongoDB, which is somewhat similar, cannot be stacked up against …
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 …
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 …
Chose 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 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.
Chose Cassandra
Cassandra does one thing very well. It's able to collect any type of metrics and analytics and store them at very fast speeds. But when it comes to reading the data, there are minor performance issues. That's when other databases such as couchdb or couchbase come in. They can …
Chose 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 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 …
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 …
Chose Cassandra
I tried to evaluate Cassandra against Voldemort and found Cassandra more efficient when writing scalable applications.
Chose 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 …
Chose Cassandra
Cassandra is well suited to more complex networks like multiple data centers. The underlying distributed systems logic is fundamentally sound.
MongoDB
Chose MongoDB
The environment I work in is somewhat unique in that we use both MySQL and MongoDB. However, each is used for specific purposes that the other is not well suited for. MongoDB is not a relational database like MySQL, so it serves as the perfect place to dump key bits of data for …
Chose MongoDB
We have [measured] the speed in reading/write operations in high load and finally select the winner = MongoDBWe have [not] too much data but in case there will be 10 [times] more we need Cassandra. Cassandra's storage engine provides constant-time writes no matter how big your …
Chose MongoDB
Both Couchbase and MongoDB are document-oriented NoSQL databases, so they have very similar features. While they do have some fundamental differences in terms of how they scale, shard, etc. the one key reason why we went with MongoDB is its availability and support from the …
Chose MongoDB
The flexible structure underlying MongoDB's construction is not found in other competitors; the ability to easily change the structure without affecting other stored documents. It is very ideal for projects that you cannot predict that the structure will change this way. Of …
Chose MongoDB
Implementing new features for application becomes simpler with MongoDB since you don't need to run database migration scripts just to for example add new fields to database only to store some extra data. This is especially good for the deployment phase. Only new version of …
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is a robust and scalable db which offers a lot of cool features out of the box. Being open sourced and backed by a great community with developer tools like mongo compass , it was a no-brainer to go for it. It has connectors in almost all programming languages and is a …
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is more of a general purpose nosql database, while elasticSearch is a search engine oriented nosql solution.
Percona Server for MongoDB is a more suitable solution for the enterprise field.
Chose MongoDB
I would say Cassandra is better than MongoDB since it has the backing of Facebook to it. Its inherent properties like versioning put it into the other category of columnar databases, but it's one of the NoSQL databases which you should definitely consider for your organization …
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is the most reliable and fastest for storing document-based data. It has a place among the most popular DB's these days.
Chose MongoDB
This tool is only capable of reading real-time data very smoothly. The transition was also pretty easy and quick. Syntax is also very easy and comfortable to learn and use.

The main reason for selecting is that it works very fast under the Intellijet module environment and we …
Chose MongoDB
In our early development days we weighed NoSQL databases like MongoDB with RDBMS solutions like MySQL. We were more familiar with MySQL from past experience but also were wary of painful data migrations that slowed down development iterations and increased the risk of outages …
Chose MongoDB
Also, using DocumentDB, and both are good, each was chosen based on the developer's expertise. So take advantage of in-house skills.
Chose MongoDB
Snowflake and Redshift are much more mature and have been around longer. MongoDB is definitely much less expensive and if you are in a startup, this is an almost for-sure option. Redshift can be slow and Mongo is much faster. However, losing the relational database aspect could …
Chose MongoDB
I just felt MongoDB was easier to use and more cost-effective. Aggregation pipelines are great.
Chose MongoDB
It's very fast and easiest to use. Many companies are using this nowadays. It's helped to complete many software products very quickly so the year income has increased compared with last years. Many programmers are now leaning this tool as back end developers so that we changed …
Chose MongoDB
We selected MongoDB because of the following
  • Ease of deployment
  • Use and provisioning on their cloud
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is our go-to database solution for any project, and the more we work with it the more we love it. Some say that NoSQL is pointless... Our developers wholeheartedly disagree, because they love working with it. Though both NoSQL and SQL have their purposes, in most …
Chose MongoDB
Your default choice should not be MongoDB in my opinion. Most user-facing systems are relational by nature so a well known and reliable SQL database would be easier to maintain and simpler to develop long term. If you highly value speed of development go with firebase. If you …
Chose MongoDB
It does not belong to certain cloud platforms. MongoDB is an independent program that works with any cloud platform including Amazon Web Services and the Google Cloud Platform. For companies who want to maintain a cloud agnostic structure, MongoDB is a great choice for NoSQL …
Chose MongoDB
We wanted to use free ware relational database for our need. MongoDB was perfect fit.
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB and Cassandra are both database system from the NoSQL family. MongoDB can be used in lots of use cases while Cassandra has a specific usage. There are some features that MongoDB provides efficiently while Cassandra doesn't and vice-versa. Like, you can update the data …
Chose MongoDB
We tend to choose MongoDB when we're faced with a particular situation: we know that we need a NoSQL database in general, and want an open-source implementation that allows us to prevent against platform lock-in. Amazon's new DocumentDB product even allows us to choose to use …
TrustRadius Insights
Apache CassandraMongoDB
Highlights

TrustRadius
Research Team Insight
Published

Cassandra and MongoDB are NoSQL databases designed to store large amounts of data in a highly scalable way. Cassandra tends to be used by mid-sized companies and larger enterprises, while MongoDB is a popular choice for companies of all sizes.

MongoDB is great for smaller businesses due to its affordability and flexible querying. Large enterprises may prefer Cassandra due to its scalability and safeguards against database downtime.

Features

Cassandra and MongoDB both have essential NoSQL database features, but they also have some standout features that set them apart.

Cassandra is a highly scalable database solution that can manage large amounts of unstructured data. Additionally, Cassandra utilizes multiple master nodes, so if one node goes down, data availability doesn’t suffer as long as other nodes are available. Cassandra is easy to set up, even without support, in part due to simple data replication capabilities.

MongoDB uses a data-oriented data model that makes it straightforward to perform data analysis. Secondary indexes are also supported by MongoDB, which makes querying flexible and fast as long as the queried documents aren’t missing indexes. JavaScript developers will also have an easy time working with MongoDB as it has a robust API with nodeJS.

Limitations

Although Cassandra and MongoDB both perform basic NoSQL database functions, they both also have some significant limitations that should be considered.

Cassandra offers limited support for secondary indexing. As a result, users must query by primary keys. Querying by primary keys limits flexibility in data modeling as data must be structured based on the queries users want to use rather than the structure of the data itself. Administration and management of Cassandra databases can also be taxing as there are frequent rolling updates that are not automated.

MongoDB’s indexing allows for quick querying if all indexes are present, but nay missing indexes can result in slowdown as each document in a collection needs to be searched. Additionally, MongoDB only has one master node per cluster. If the master node ever goes down, the data it holds will briefly become unavailable until a new node replaces it. Setup for MongoDB is more complicated than Cassandra, so support may be necessary for some organizations.

Pricing

Cassandra is an open-source NoSQL database, so the source code is available for free. Various third-party vendors provide hosting and support for Cassandra, so pricing can vary. Depending on storage and support features, some Cassandra vendors start as low as $0.36 per hour.

MongoDB has official support for three different cloud providers, AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure. Pricing depends on the cloud provider chosen, as well as cluster size and storage requirements. MongoDB pricing can start as low as a few cents per hour.

Features
Apache CassandraMongoDB
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
Apache Cassandra
-
Ratings
MongoDB
10.0
Ratings
16% above category average
Performance00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Availability00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Concurrency00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Security00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Data model flexibility00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility00 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Apache CassandraMongoDB
Small Businesses

No answers on this topic

IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Azure Cosmos DB
Azure Cosmos DB
Score 9.0 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
Enterprises
Azure Cosmos DB
Azure Cosmos DB
Score 9.0 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Apache CassandraMongoDB
Likelihood to Recommend
6.0
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.6
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.0
(0 ratings)
10.0
(0 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.0
(0 ratings)
9.6
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
7.0
(0 ratings)
8.4
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Apache CassandraMongoDB
Likelihood to Recommend
Cassandra excels in a broad range of applications -- especially if you understand its data model and write your applications accordingly. It's an excellent choice for time-series data, and a poor choice for application queues. It performs the best if you can simply record history and compute from it, rather than going back and editing or deleting things a lot.
Read full review
MongoDB [is] great at storing JSON data grouped into "collections". In this format, you can store any JSON documents and conveniently categorize them by collections. The JSON document contained in MongoDB is called binary JSON or BSON and, like any other document in this format, is unstructured. Therefore, unlike traditional DBMS, any kind of data can be stored in collections, and this flexibility is combined with the horizontal scalability of the database. It should be noted that MongoDB does not have links between documents and “collections” (this is partially compensated by the Database Reference - links in the DBMS, but this does not completely solve the problem). As a result, a situation arises in which there is a certain set of data that is not related to other information in the database, and there is no way to combine data from different documents. In SQL systems, this would be an elementary task.
Read full review
Pros
  • High Availability - we utilize the data replication features of Cassandra. This enables us to access our data even when several nodes have gone down
  • Data Locality - our architecture combines Cassandra storage nodes and computation nodes in the same machine. This enables us to utilize data locality and limit expensive network IO to read data.
  • Elasticity - Cassandra is a shared nothing architecture. Nodes can be added very easily and they discover the network topology. As soon as a node has joined the Cassandra ring, the data is redistributed among the existing nodes and streamed to it automatically.
Read full review
  • Easy to learn. When I picked up MongoDB for the first time, I had little background in database management or modeling. If you have a background in javascript (and JSON)... then you can figure out how to use MongoDB pretty fast.
  • Fast performance.
  • It's relatively easy to set up in certain environments because there are lots of ready-made solutions out there.
  • There's a lot of support in the existing ecosystem for it —, especially in the node.js realm.
  • Query syntax is pretty simple to grasp and utilize.
  • Aggregate functions are powerful.
  • Scaling options.
  • Documentation is quite good and versioned for each release.
Read full review
Cons
  • No Ad-Hoc Queries: Cassandra data storage layer is basically a key-value storage system. This means that you must "model" your data around the queries you want to surface, rather than around the structure of the data itself.
  • There are no aggregations queries available in Cassandra.
  • Not fit for transactional data.
Read full review
  • I love the idea of Map-Reduce native support in MongoDB. Admittedly I have not used it as much as I would like -- it always seems to trip me up.
  • Recent additions to the aggregation queries have helped reduce (no pun intended) my need to better wield the weapon that is Map-Reduce.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
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
MongoDB is one of the most famous non-relational databases in the world, there are famous active projects that use this database. I think that the same company that develops the database gives you the online induction totally free is something that really is very positive. Accounts with a first-class support to be able to relate the correct implementation of the database, in addition to teaching you the best practices to optimize your projects, I believe that with this decision it is more than obvious which is the best decision at the time of seeing with which database to work.
Read full review
Usability
It’s great tool but it can be complicated when it comes administration and maintenance.
Read full review
It is one of the reasons why we prefer it to store documents in a JSON-style format, to access the desired document very quickly regardless of its size, to be readable by human eyes, and to be easily scalable and manageable.
Read full review
Support Rating
Sometimes instead giving straight answer, we ‘re getting transfered to talk professional service.
Read full review
I have reached multiple times to the MongoDB community for the help and they have provided each and easy solution for every problem. Over the internet and on stack overflow many people responds over the challenges. Now this tool is very much used in every company and projects so internally many people are there to give a support.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
While the setup and configuration of MongoDB is pretty straight forward, having a vendor that performs automatic backups and scales the cluster automatically is very convenient. If you do not have a system administrator or DBA familiar with MongoDB on hand, it's a very good idea to use a 3rd party vendor that specializes in MongoDB hosting. The value is very well worth it over hosting it yourself since the cost is often reasonable among providers.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
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 which were within hadoop setup and JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) document store respectively, but given the overall factors favoring Apache Cassandra, it is a technology choice for multiple platforms!
Read full review
The environment I work in is somewhat unique in that we use both MySQL and MongoDB. However, each is used for specific purposes that the other is not well suited for. MongoDB is not a relational database like MySQL, so it serves as the perfect place to dump key bits of data for quick retrieval later. This is something we can't easily do with MySQL. On this smaller database, MongoDB also lets us retrieve data more quickly with its fast and efficient querying.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • The open source version of Cassandra is only suggested for learning the basic concepts and play with its core features. Unless you really want to invest a lot in your developers and architects knowing every detail of Cassandra, I prefer the DataStax enterprise version. Although the license cost is relatively high, I think they it is worth it. I'm thinking about the support, the monitoring tool OpsCenter, and the integration of Solr and Spark (for data analysis).
  • Cassandra didn't fully replace our old and traditional relation database Oracle. In addition, it opens another door for us to deal with some special business use cases that NoSQL database can do better in a more feasible and efficient way.
Read full review
  • We can make more open and flexible systems due to its easy adaptation to new evolutions in web applications.
  • In the latest versions it offers support for different transactions and we could carry out real tests related to the concurrency of the application.
  • MongoDB allows you to have distributed clusters, which improves the speed of the queries by reducing the latency that exists between the database cluster and the service that executes the query.
Read full review
ScreenShots

MongoDB Screenshots

Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of Screenshot of