TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    CouchDB

    Score6 out of 10
    N/AApache CouchDB is an HTTP + JSON document database with Map Reduce views and bi-directional replication. The Couch Replication Protocol is implemented in a variety of projects and products that span computing environments from globally distributed server-clusters, over mobile phones to web browsers.N/A

    Microsoft Access

    Score7.5 out of 10
    N/AMicrosoft Access is a database management system from Microsoft that combines the relational Microsoft Jet Database Engine with a graphical user interface and software-development tools.

    $139.99

    per PC

    Pricing
    CouchDBMicrosoft Access
    Editions & Modules
    No answers on this topic
    Microsoft Access
    $139.99
    per PC
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    CouchDBMicrosoft Access
    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
    CouchDBMicrosoft Access
    Considered Both Products
    Apache
    No answer on this topic
    Microsoft
    No answer on this topic
    Key User Insights
    Would buy again
    No answers on this topic
    97%
    Would buy again
    29 Answers
    Delivers good value for the price
    No answers on this topic
    97%
    Delivers good value for the price
    29 Answers
    Happy with the feature set
    No answers on this topic
    93%
    Happy with the feature set
    28 Answers
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    No answers on this topic
    86%
    Lived up to sales and marketing promises
    19 Answers
    Implementation went as expected
    No answers on this topic
    91%
    Implementation went as expected
    21 Answers
    Features
    CouchDBMicrosoft Access
    NoSQL Databases
    Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Apache CouchDB and Microsoft Access
    Feature
    Apache CouchDB
    7.9
    2 Ratings
    8% below category average
    Microsoft Access
    -
    Ratings
    Performance8.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Availability8.52 Ratings00 Ratings
    Concurrency8.52 Ratings00 Ratings
    Security6.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Scalability8.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Data model flexibility7.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Deployment model flexibility9.02 Ratings00 Ratings
    Relational Databases
    Comparison of Relational Databases features of Apache CouchDB and Microsoft Access
    Feature
    Apache CouchDB
    -
    Ratings
    Microsoft Access
    7.7
    3 Ratings
    5% below category average
    ACID compliance00 Ratings7.02 Ratings
    Database monitoring00 Ratings8.02 Ratings
    Database locking00 Ratings8.03 Ratings
    Encryption00 Ratings7.02 Ratings
    Disaster recovery00 Ratings7.73 Ratings
    Flexible deployment00 Ratings8.02 Ratings
    Multiple datatypes00 Ratings8.03 Ratings
    Best Alternatives
    CouchDBMicrosoft Access
    Small Businesses
    IBM Cloudant
    Score7.4 out of 10
    Amazon RDS
    Score8.1 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    IBM Cloudant
    Score7.4 out of 10
    SingleStore
    Score8.2 out of 10
    Enterprises
    IBM Cloudant
    Score7.4 out of 10
    SAP IQ
    Score5.5 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    CouchDBMicrosoft Access
    Likelihood to Recommend
    9.0
    (10 ratings)
    7.4
    (102 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    9.0
    (9 ratings)
    10.0
    (15 ratings)
    Usability
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    7.6
    (8 ratings)
    Availability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    Support Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    6.4
    (5 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    9.0
    (1 ratings)
    10.0
    (1 ratings)
    Ease of integration
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.0
    (1 ratings)
    Product Scalability
    -
    (0 ratings)
    5.0
    (1 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    CouchDBMicrosoft Access
    Likelihood to Recommend
    Apache
    Great for REST API development, if you want a small, fast server that will send and receive JSON structures, CouchDB is hard to beat. Not great for enterprise-level relational database querying (no kidding). While by definition, document-oriented databases are not relational, porting or migrating from relational, and using CouchDB as a backend is probably not a wise move as it's reliable, but It may not always be highly available.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    As a Material Purchasing/Planning/inventory tracking application, Microsoft Access serves its purpose well. It's presentation is clean, data entry is simple and the ability to customize search fields is welcome. It does, however, come with some caveats; namely, when setting search filters and the need arises to back up a step or two, with Microsoft Access you have to reset, or "clear all", adding extra steps/time to a query.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Pros
    Apache
    • It can replicate and sync with web browsers via PouchDB. This lets you keep a synced copy of your database on the client-side, which offers much faster data access than continuous HTTP requests would allow, and enables offline usage.
    • Simple Map/Reduce support. The M/R system lets you process terabytes of documents in parallel, save the results, and only need to reprocess documents that have changed on subsequent updates. While not as powerful as Hadoop, it is an easy to use query system that's hard to screw up.
    • Sharding and Clustering support. As of CouchDB 2.0, it supports clustering and sharding of documents between instances without needing a load balancer to determine where requests should go.
    • Master to Master replication lets you clone, continuously backup, and listen for changes through the replication protocol, even over unreliable WAN links.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • Very easy to create entity-relationship diagrams for various tables and designing mock layouts.
    • Really easy to navigate as it hold[s] the classic Microsoft UI. Another good thing is that it comes with the complete MS Office Suite.
    • It is really fast when joining multiple tables no matter what type of join.
    • Works on pretty much same SQL scripts so no need to learn a new language!
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    Apache
    • NoSQL DB can become a challenge for seasoned RDBMS users.
    • The map-reduce paradigm can be very demanding for first-time users.
    • JSON format documents with Key-Value pairs are somewhat verbose and consume more storage.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • Microsoft Access has not really changed at all for several years. It might be nice to see some upgrades and changes.
    • The help info is often not helpful. Need more tutorials for Microsoft Access to show how to do specific things.
    • Be careful naming objects such as tables, forms, etc. Names that are too long can get cut off in dialog boxes to choose a table, form, report, etc. So, I wish they would have resizable dialog boxes to allow you to see objects with long names.
    • I wish it could show me objects that are not in use in the database for current queries, tables, reports, forms, and macros. That way unused objects can be deleted without worrying about losing a report or query because you deleted the underlying object.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    Apache
    Because our current solution S3 is working great and CouchDB was a nightmare. The worst is that at first, it seemed fine until we filled it with tons of data and then started to create views and actually delete.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    I and the rest of my team will renew our Microsoft Access in the future because we use and maintain many different applications and databases created using Microsoft Access so we will need to maintain them in the future. Additionally, it is a standard at our place of work so it is at $0 cost to us to use. Another reason for renewing Microsoft Access is that we just don' t have the resources needed to extend into a network of users so we need to remain a single-desktop application at this time.
    Read full review
    Usability
    Apache
    Couchdb is very simple to use and the features are also reduced but well implemented. In order to use it the way its designed, the ui is adequate and easy. Of course, there are some other task that can't be performed through the admin ui but the minimalistic design allows you to use external libraries to develop custom scripts
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    Microsoft Access is easy to use. It is compatible with spreadsheets. It is a very good data management tool. There is scope to save a large amount of data in one place. For using this database, one does not need much training, can be shared among multiple users. This database has to sort and filtering features which seem to be very useful.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Reliability and Availability
    Apache
    No answers on this topic
    Microsoft
    I don't think the program has ever failed me. It is one of those programs where there is always a solution if you know where to look.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Support Rating
    Apache
    No answers on this topic
    Microsoft
    While I have never contacted Microsoft directly for product support, for some reason there's a real prejudice against MS Access among most IT support professionals. They are usually discouraging when it comes to using MS Access. Most of this is due to their lack of understanding of MS Access and how it can improve one's productivity. If Microsoft invested more resources towards enhancing and promoting the use of MS Access then maybe things would be different.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Implementation Rating
    Apache
    it support is minimal also hw requirements. Also for development, we can have databases replicated everywhere and the replication is automagical. once you set up the security and the rules for replication, you are ready to go. The absence of a model let you build your app the way you want it
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    there is no key idea, since it is easy to implement Microsoft Access
    Read full review
    Alternatives Considered
    Apache
    It has been 5+ years since we chose CouchDB. We looked an MongoDB, Cassandra, and probably some others. At the end of the day, the performance, power potential, and simplicity of CouchDB made it a simple choice for our needs. No one should use just because we did. As I said early, make sure you understand your problems, and find the right solution. Some random reading that might be useful: http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap-theorem https://www.couchbase.com/nosql-resources/why-nosql\ https://www.infoq.com/articles/cap-twelve-years-later-how-the-rules-have-changed
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    Excel is a fantastic - robust application that can do so much so easily. Its easy to train and understand. However - excel does not provide a reporting function and that is typically where we will suggest a move to [Microsoft] Access. [Microsoft] Access requires a little more knowledge of data manipulation.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    Apache
    • It has saved us hours and hours of coding.
    • It is has taught us a new way to look at things.
    • It has taught us patience as the first few weeks with CouchDB were not pleasant. It was not easy to pick up like MongoDB.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Microsoft
    • Not having to recreate queries or reports every time you want to use them.
    • Once an item is created and saved as part of the database, you save manpower by not having to recreate them.
    • ROI from a usability standpoint is great. Solid product with great functionality that requires low maintenance usually.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    ScreenShots