Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
N/A
Cloudant is an open source non-relational, distributed database service that requires zero-configuration. It's based on the Apache-backed CouchDB project and the creator of the open source BigCouch project. Cloudant's service provides integrated data management, search, and analytics engine designed for web applications. Cloudant scales your database on the CouchDB framework and provides hosting, administrative tools, analytics and commercial support for CouchDB and BigCouch. Cloudant is often…
$1
per month per GB of storage above the included 20 GB
MongoDB
Score 8.9 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.
$0.10
million reads
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
IBM CloudantMongoDBMySQL
Editions & Modules
Standard
$1
per month per GB of storage above the included 20 GB
Standard
$75
per month 100 reads/second ; 50 writes/second ; 5 global queries/second
Lite
Free
20 reads/second ; 10 writes/second ; 5 global queries / second ; 1 GB of storage capacity
Standard
Included
per month 20 GB of storage
Shared
$0
per month
Serverless
$0.10million reads
million reads
Dedicated
$57
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM CloudantMongoDBMySQL
Free Trial
YesYesNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesYesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
YesNoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsFully managed, global cloud database on AWS, Azure, and GCP
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IBM CloudantMongoDBMySQL
Considered Multiple Products
IBM Cloudant
Chose IBM Cloudant
I have used MongoDB prior to using Cloudant. For me Cloudant is a winner because the learning curve is not as steep as MongoDB. I also looked into using DynamoDB (AWS) but the set up was quite complicated so I gave up and tried to use Cloudant.
Chose IBM Cloudant
Cloudant extends features of CouchDB, but you don't have to host it for yourself. IBM does this for you. Also Cloudant is free if you are under $50 per month. And there is integration with other IBM products, like dashDB (for analytics).Cloudant has CouchApps and it's a feature …
Chose IBM Cloudant
We chose Cloudant because it was fully managed and used in the marketplace, unlike MongoDB was at the time, and it supported JSON which SQL Server 2016 didn't.
Chose IBM Cloudant
The feature-set, including security, is very comparable. Overall, IBM's services added to the product are mature and stable, although product support and engineers could be a little better. Global availability is improving, and Disaster Recover Capabilities are great. Overall, …
Chose IBM Cloudant
The documentation of Cloudant alone has made it my database service of choice. With MongoDB you have to manage hardware, sharding, networking... Cloudant takes all the hassle out of storage allowing you to focus on more important tasks.
Chose IBM Cloudant
MongoDB Atlas and Azure Cosmos DB are the closest competitors we found with Cloudant, especially in terms of fixed pricing and having a GUI for easy viewing and quick edits of data. Cloudant's pricing model flat out beats MongoDB Atlas' in terms of how easy it would be to …
Chose IBM Cloudant
IBM cloudant documentation is very easy to understand and because of that the implementation is also very easy. We found some difficulties in case of aws documents implementation. Performance of the cloudant database is also high as compare to the other databases. Indexing and …
Chose IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant is great for quick deployment and configs of a database service, especially when it comes to rapid prototyping. In a research capacity, we need to spin up web services and run experiments quickly. IBM Cloudant is a fuss-free database service [that] aids in this …
Chose IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant wins in all aspects, from cost, ease of deployment, features, global availability and much more.
Chose IBM Cloudant
As its documentation and help are always available, it's easier to manage than any other database mentioned.
Chose IBM Cloudant
I have mainly used Cloudant as I work with IBM Cloud in my role and therefore it was easiest (and cheapest) to set up for the small scale prototypes we are building. (Which do however sometimes lead to scaled implementation)
Chose IBM Cloudant
In our case it was a no-brainer since we were using IBM Cloud. In comparison to DB2 the ease of use and JSON support was the key.
Chose IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant DB is backed by CouchDB and that too hosted on IBM Cloud is the key. Concurrency and durability is the key here. In-memory capabilities are non-existent on the IBM Cloudant DB.
Chose IBM Cloudant
It's easier to use than Dynamo, more open than Firebase, and has better documentation that CouchDB... it might not be fair to compare Modulus, Modulus obviously suffers from some scalability issues and might not be in the same class... but its a hosted DB service we had some …
Chose IBM Cloudant
All other NoSQL document-centric DB must be installed on premise on in the cloud as complicated clusters. The "as a service" formula and the open source origin were the same reasons for Cloudant choice, freeing us of all system and administration tasks!
Chose IBM Cloudant
Cloudant is a database as a service with a strong support team. The feature set is comparable to other solutions but not all are managed services, or have easy scalability, or can demonstrate production level reliability and performance.
Chose IBM Cloudant
The technology behind Cloudant (BigCouch) is no better or worse than any of these. They are all good for different reasons. What makes Cloudant my choice against them is the hosted portion. These are all just databases that I would have to manage. Cloudant is managed for me, …
Chose IBM Cloudant
I've even worked with Cassandra, but I found Cloudant to be much simpler, easier, neat and efficient. Cassandra was not highly scalable but Cloudant was much efficient in it. Even the Monitoring and other scripts were pre-built which made it much time efficient for us.
Chose IBM Cloudant
I think they are very similar. We would like to have local versions of cloudant to have a better integration.
Chose IBM Cloudant
For the first several months, we ran our projects on AWS, and in order to construct a faster connection experience on data processing, we choose DynamoDB which is one of Amazon's products as well. However, after migrating to Softlayer and being recommended by the sales …
MongoDB
Chose MongoDB
I have used KairosDB, Cassandra and MySQL and mongodb proves out to be the best of them. Mainly due to it being a document-oriented database.
Chose MongoDB
MySQL is a great for querying related data, but it's unable to store structured data and has a fixed schema. Also SQL can be non-intuitive. DynamoDB, CouchDB and Redis all make querying the data quite difficult and lack important features. The problem CouchDB tries to solve is …
Chose MongoDB
I love MySQL, but again, it's a totally different use-case. For something with so much varied data in no particular form or structure that needs to be pooled together in a "data lake," a NoSQL solution like MongoDB is an easy choice. It makes it so much easier not having to …
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is the best NoSQL database out there. There are others, but Mongo has the largest community, is very easy to set up, and is extremely performant. Compared to a relational DB (like MySQL or Postgres) is like comparing apples and oranges. One isn't better or worse than …
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 …
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is very easy to use and the best advantage is the NoSQL database. No concept of the relational database.
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is the most complete database of NoSQL type. In my opinion, it has all the tools for a good development of a database. I have not had problems when using the application.
Chose MongoDB
I only briefly looked at CouchDB after I already began using MongoDB. Naturally, I have used many relational SQL databases.

Since MongoDB did everything I needed, I saw no need to look around for alternatives.
Chose MongoDB
You can use MongoDB with the same use cases you use other relational databases, the difference is that with MongoDB you can do the same but easier and faster.
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB was the most full-featured NoSQL database we evaluated - that offered atomic transactions at a document level, built-in HA & DR, open source, robust queries, and enterprise level support.

Other platforms had specific parts of what we were looking for - MongoDB had it all.
Chose MongoDB
From the beginning, we thought we would have a large volume of data, so MongoDB was a natural choice. Next we started the project and found MongoDB is also developing new features that are more like SQL which was very nice for us. As data volume is growing with time, no need to …
Chose MongoDB
Relational DB are not efficient when storing data structure like JSON. Different data structure can be stored without defining the schema. Most relational db might store data like Json as blobs. One single entry would store the entire JSON as blob and you can't query the …
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is my only NoSQL database that I have used. I have used SQL databases and don't find them as enjoyable. I code in full stack JavaScript and it blends perfectly with this. I know that there are competitors in this space, and I need to take time to try them all out. I …
Chose MongoDB
I selected MongoDB because it works for well with web interfaces. All of the RDBMS alternatives would have required a lot more time writing schemas and working around retrieving data and mapping it. That could have been somewhat mitigated with Entity Framework, but that again …
MySQL
Chose MySQL
Postgres, SQL Server, DB2, Oracle, DashDB, MongoDB, RedShift - all of them have their strengths and weaknesses. I will say this about MySQL though, it is generally the first database chosen by a startup. It's easy to use, easy to deploy, free, and it just works.
Chose MySQL
The main argument of this decision was by popularity. At the time (2010), MySQL was the most popular open source database. Between 2010 and today, we evaluated different databases and PostgreSQL is a great competitor. SQL Server is good for windows applications but it's not …
Chose MySQL
As MongoDB does not support relational queries we have to write all queries manually, but My Sql supports this feature through joins.
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
MySQL is a standard across many industries and is familiar to most developers as a result. When comparing to something like MongoDB, most developers are more familiar and comfortable with MySQL. When comparing to something like Oracle, MySQL clearly wins in the expense …
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 …
Chose MySQL
It would be hard to make a case for the use of Microsoft Access for any but the most simple of internal business applications at this stage, not because it is a bad product but it falls well short of the power and scalability of MySQL and almost any other databse solution out …
Chose MySQL
MongoDB is an application oriented solution with unstructured data. Percona Server for MySQL is a good solution when looking for performance peaks and the amount of data grows continuously over time. MySQL is the ideal solution when we have a data schema defined and we do not …
Chose MySQL
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 …
Chose MySQL
The primary reason we use MySQL instead of MongoDB is because we are in a large, legacy enterprise environment. MySQL works well and has all the necessary integrations with the various other software tools in our company's suite. Additionally, MySQL is a relational database …
Chose MySQL
Is not a drop-in replacement for any of the things listed above. MySQL has it's purpose and use-cases, same as those. It's a low-cost solution for high read/low write applications and works very well when used in the right circumstances. Support can be purchased from various …
Chose MySQL
MySQL was the first option due to the existing knowledge, and after using other databases, it also appeared to be the most predictable in terms of costs
Chose MySQL
Each of the products has its own merits and demerits. however since MySQL is a very good documentation and global community its easy to learn and apply in different stages for analytics work. compare to other data bases its simple for setup and work on it. MySQL is cost …
Chose MySQL
We let go SQL server as We don't want to use Windows server and bare the cost of Windows licensing.
Chose MySQL
Having used both PostgreSQL and Microsoft SQL Server, I can tell that MySQL performs admirably in a Linux setting. When compared to Microsoft SQL Server, the extra benefit is the minimal or nonexistent licence fee. We find that MySQL's programming interface is particularly …
Chose MySQL
A bit on the more complex side, but definitely one of the more popular solutions between our customers. As a stable alternative to the sometimes really pricy Oracle DB, it performed well for most of our not-database-heavy projects. It was a bit slower than no-SQL solutions on …
Chose MySQL
It is one of the tools that we had stopped using some time ago and in the last year we amplified its use thanks to its benefits and new functionalities.
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
MySQL is a most generic implementation of a database of a sort that is coherent with major designs of web engines and frameworks. As it works in cross-platform environments and easy to deploy it seems to be a competitive choice and prospective solution for integration into web …
Chose MySQL
We have used Oracle as our clinical databases that stores patient records. In this project we didn't used Oracle but separately built MySQL based data infrastructure as this is an independent scientific research project. Oracle is great overall, with most of functionalities …
Chose MySQL
MySQL has it's pros / cons. The best things about MySQL are that it is open-source/free and has such a vast community of users. If you want a free database MySQL is the quickest to use, but if you're trying to build a strong foundation for your company, I prefer Postgres. If …
Chose MySQL
I have the most experience with MySQL so I feel most comfortable using and implementing it. I like it over MSSQL just because I'm not a fan of some of the features MSSQL has. My Mongo and Hadoop experience was for a very specific purpose and they better matches the project …
Chose MySQL
MySQL provides a feature to easily move to another technology. As we know, most of the users like to use MySQL in the backend because it reduces the overall business cost. No need to pay additional charges. Regularly updated.
Chose MySQL
Oracle is very mature and best in its class. However the cost is much higher. MySQL is a good alternative option.
Features
IBM CloudantMongoDBMySQL
NoSQL Databases
Comparison of NoSQL Databases features of Product A and Product B
IBM Cloudant
9.1
21 Ratings
2% above category average
MongoDB
10.0
39 Ratings
12% above category average
MySQL
-
Ratings
Performance9.721 Ratings10.039 Ratings00 Ratings
Availability8.321 Ratings10.039 Ratings00 Ratings
Concurrency9.821 Ratings10.039 Ratings00 Ratings
Security8.221 Ratings10.039 Ratings00 Ratings
Scalability9.021 Ratings10.039 Ratings00 Ratings
Data model flexibility9.821 Ratings10.039 Ratings00 Ratings
Deployment model flexibility9.021 Ratings10.038 Ratings00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
IBM CloudantMongoDBMySQL
Small Businesses
Redis Software
Redis Software
Score 9.1 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
InfluxDB
InfluxDB
Score 8.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Redis Software
Redis Software
Score 9.1 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
SQLite
SQLite
Score 8.0 out of 10
Enterprises
Redis Software
Redis Software
Score 9.1 out of 10
IBM Cloudant
IBM Cloudant
Score 7.4 out of 10
SQLite
SQLite
Score 8.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
IBM CloudantMongoDBMySQL
Likelihood to Recommend
7.0
(45 ratings)
10.0
(79 ratings)
8.4
(146 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
7.3
(1 ratings)
10.0
(67 ratings)
9.0
(5 ratings)
Usability
7.7
(5 ratings)
10.0
(15 ratings)
7.9
(18 ratings)
Availability
8.2
(1 ratings)
9.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
8.2
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
8.6
(4 ratings)
9.6
(13 ratings)
9.0
(3 ratings)
Online Training
7.3
(2 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
8.2
(4 ratings)
8.4
(2 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
Configurability
8.5
(3 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.6
(23 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
9.1
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
IBM CloudantMongoDBMySQL
Likelihood to Recommend
IBM
Our organization found Cloudant most suitable if One, a fixed pricing structure would make the most sense, for example in a situation where the project Cloudant is being used in makes its revenue in procurement or fixed retainer — thus the predictability of costs is paramount; Two, where you need to frequently edit the data and/or share access to the query engine to non-engineers — this is where the GUI shines.
Read full review
MongoDB
If asked by a colleague I would highly recommend MongoDB. MongoDB provides incredible flexibility and is quick and easy to set up. It also provides extensive documentation which is very useful for someone new to the tool. Though I've used it for years and still referenced the docs often. From my experience and the use cases I've worked on, I'd suggest using it anywhere that needs a fast, efficient storage space for non-relational data. If a relational database is needed then another tool would be more apt.
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
IBM
  • For us, performance and scalability is the key, and Cloudant DB backed by CouchDB is scalable and performant.
  • IBM Cloudant dB is very easy to provision for sandbox, development, QA as well as production.
  • Support for Java for CouchDB app server analytics enables a greater control for over developers.
  • Schema free oriented very easy to program and build applications on it.
  • We love it!!
Read full review
MongoDB
  • Being a JSON language optimizes the response time of a query, you can directly build a query logic from the same service
  • You can install a local, database-based environment rather than the non-relational real-time bases such a firebase does not allow, the local environment is paramount since you can work without relying on the internet.
  • Forming collections in Mango is relatively simple, you do not need to know of query to work with it, since it has a simple graphic environment that allows you to manage databases for those who are not experts in console management.
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
IBM
  • It was only after we went with the cloud-based solution that IBM rolled out an on-premise version.
  • We found that a 3rd-party ODBC driver was required for a few applications that needed to pull data out of Cloudant.
  • The sales process was difficult because the salesperson we used was not as versed on Cloudant as I had hoped.
Read full review
MongoDB
  • An aggregate pipeline can be a bit overwhelming as a newcomer.
  • There's still no real concept of joins with references/foreign keys, although the aggregate framework has a feature that is close.
  • Database management/dev ops can still be time-consuming if rolling your own deployments. (Thankfully there are plenty of providers like Compose or even MongoDB's own Atlas that helps take care of the nitty-gritty.
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
IBM
the flexibility of NoSQL allow us to modify and upgrade our apps very fast and in a convenient way. Having the solution hosted by IBM is also giving us the chance to focus on features and the improvement of our apps. It's one thing less to be worried about
Read full review
MongoDB
I am looking forward to increasing our SaaS subscriptions such that I get to experience global replica sets, working in reads from secondaries, and what not. Can't wait to be able to exploit some of the power that the "Big Boys" use MongoDB for.
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
IBM
It's mostly just a straight forward API to a data store. I knock one off for the full text search thing, but I don't need it much anyways. Also, the dashboard UI they give is pretty nice to use. It provides syntax-highlighting for writing views and queries are easy to test. I wish other DBs had a UI like this.
Read full review
MongoDB
NoSQL database systems such as MongoDB lack graphical interfaces by default and therefore to improve usability it is necessary to install third-party applications to see more visually the schemas and stored documents. In addition, these tools also allow us to visualize the commands to be executed for each operation.
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
IBM
it is a highly available solution in the IBM cloud portfolio and hence we have never had any issues with the data base being available - we also do continuous replication to be on the safer side just in case some thing goes awry. We also perform twice a year disaster recovery tests.
Read full review
MongoDB
No answers on this topic
Oracle
No answers on this topic
Performance
IBM
very easy to get started and is very developer friendly given that it uses couchDB analytics. It is a cloud based solution and hence there is no hardware investment in a server and staging the server to get started and the associated delays/bureaucracy involved to get started. Good documentation is also available.
Read full review
MongoDB
No answers on this topic
Oracle
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
IBM
Very happy by the commitment given by the team which has been really good over the last 7 years of usage.
Read full review
MongoDB
Finding support from local companies can be difficult. There were times when the local company could not find a solution and we reached a solution by getting support globally. If a good local company is found, it will overcome all your problems with its global support.
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
IBM
online resources are good enough to understand but there is nothing like testing. In our case, we discovered some not documented behavior that we take in count now. Also, the experience in NodeJs is critical. Also, take in count that most of the "good practices" with cloudant are not in online courses but in blogs and pages from independent developers
Read full review
MongoDB
No answers on this topic
Oracle
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
IBM
  • Test the architecture on CouchDB helped us to address initial design flaws.
  • The migration to Cloudant as such was very painless.
  • We have migrate our replication system to Cloudant Android Sync for mobile devices.
  • We have regular informal contact with the Cloudant leadership to discuss our use cases and implementation strategies.
Read full review
MongoDB
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
Oracle
1. Estimate your data size. 2. Test, test, and test.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
IBM
The feature-set, including security, is very comparable. Overall, IBM's services added to the product are mature and stable, although product support and engineers could be a little better. Global availability is improving, and Disaster Recover Capabilities are great. Overall, it's very comparable to MongoDB as a DBaaS offer, available globally and with great documentation.
Read full review
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 data set grows. For analytics, MongoDB provides a custom map/reduce implementation; Cassandra provides native Hadoop support.
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
IBM
The service scales incredibly well. As you would expect from CloudDB and IBM combination. The only reason I wouldn't score it a 10 is the fact that document trees can get nested and nested very quickly if you are attempting to do very complex datasets. Which makes your code that much more complex to deal. Its very possible we could find a solution to this problem with better database planning to begin with, but one of the reasons we chose a service over a self-hosted solution was so we could set it up quick and forget about it. So we weren't going to dedicate a team to architecture optimization.
Read full review
MongoDB
No answers on this topic
Oracle
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
IBM
  • IBM Cloudant is very secure and we never have to worry about losing data/unauthorized access
  • It is one of the best data backup system and works well
  • Global availability means it is easy to connect to the nearest data center and this reduces load time which is great.
Read full review
MongoDB
  • Open Source w/ reasonable support costs have a direct, positive impact on the ROI (we moved away from large, monolithic, locked in licensing models)
  • You do have to balance the necessary level of HA & DR with the number of servers required to scale up and scale out. Servers cost money - so DR & HR doesn't come for free (even though it's built into the architecture of MongoDB
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

MongoDB Screenshots

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