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 8.8 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.
$0.10
million reads
PostgreSQL
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
PostgreSQL (alternately Postgres) is a free and open source object-relational database system boasting over 30 years of active development, reliability, feature robustness, and performance. It supports SQL and is designed to support various workloads flexibly.
N/A
Pricing
IBM Cloudant
MongoDB
PostgreSQL
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 Cloudant
MongoDB
PostgreSQL
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Fully managed, global cloud database on AWS, Azure, and GCP
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IBM Cloudant
MongoDB
PostgreSQL
Considered Multiple Products
IBM Cloudant
Verified User
Engineer
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.
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 …
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.
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, …
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.
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 …
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 …
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 …
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)
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.
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 …
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!
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.
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, …
Cloudant blows all of the other competitors out of the water. The robust UI, the scalability, the management console, these are all reasons why Cloudant is a superior product to any of these "competitors". Cloudant is head and shoulders above the rest. It was a pleasure to …
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.
Looking into PostgreSQL happened post move to Mongo. Had we considered both options at the time we likely would have went with PostgreSQL. We may migrate at some point in the future but currently it doesn't make sense.
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
I recently tried out Firestore from the Google firebase family of development products. While it allows structuring of data similar to MongoDB, it handles things a little differently. MongoDB documents are incredibly flexible and can be structured really any way you can …
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 …
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 …
The features between these database are quite comparable - except for possibly MongoDB. MongoDB being a different type of database and geared towards big data - I don't compare it to PostgreSQL. The other two I have used and would say PostgreSQL does fairly well when compared …
Despite being all open source options, what ended up making us choose PostgreSQL was the robustness of its core, which allows the great workflow that can support timely and efficient response to the demand and demand for resources. In the case of MongoDB, it is a non-relational …
MySQL is a popular open-source alternative to PostgreSQL, but in my experience it lacks the robustness, durability, and flexibility of PostgreSQL. It has also changed hands frequently, so support isn't the greatest. MongoDB and other NoSQL databases are helpful in certain …
First It's open source and it's cost-effective compared to other databases.PostgreSQL can be easily integrated with numerous platforms. It is well known and appreciated so relying on it as our system database can be easily accepted by our customers. And if your developing a …
PostgrPostgreSQL as a transaction db engine against oracle and sql server works well. TPM wise compared to MySQL and MariaDB, on an evan scale. SQL function supports, far outweighs compared to MySQL and MariaDB. PG Extensions allow for flexibiltity and scalability. Allows …
When we were originally evaluating Redshift we ran into some issue with dates. Either way, Postgres is a better choice than Redshift because it avoids vendor lockin. We ended up choosing Postgres over MySQL because it was easier at the time to get a hosted Postgres cluster up …
Much more mature and stable when compared to MySQL with features such as MVCC, complex subquery plans, ORDBMS, and NoSQL support. With Oracle retaining rights to MySQL its future as an open database is less secure and is no longer in the hands of the community. PostgreSQL also …
We selected PostgreSQL due to the number of employees who have used it in the past. The data consistency guarantees. The multiple transaction isolation levels support.
PostgreSQL outperforms every other option. It is faster, more flexible, more reliable, easier to maintain, and more consistent in behaviour than any of the other offerings.
It's a viable alternative, with a rich feature set and a reliable system. PostgreSQL is one of the best RDBMS's currently on the market in 2020, it serves just as well as a starter, PoC DB for any software idea as a final, highly valuable database solution for big systems.
PostgreSQL is the proper tool when data consistency matters and other BASE or document-based databases are simply improper. I think PostgreSQL has a fantastic system of slony replication, triggers, and other data maintenance functionality that other databases generally don't …
Compared to MySQL, it works well if you need to extend to your use case Compared to Spark, it works better w.r.t development time in a central database setting Like Redis, it cannot be used for caching and quick access of non-structured data
As I said, Postgres and MySQL are open source which is important for small start ups. Oracle is EXPENSIVE :) Postgres is faster than MySQL (Big factor) MySQL supports replication which makes it more scalable.
I am currently using MySQL and it is difficult to notice much of a difference at all. For free relational databases, there hasn't been enough for me to choose a clear winner. If you're already using a free solution, there would be no reason to change. In terms of comparing to a …
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.
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.
PostgreSQL is best used for structured data, and best when following relational database design principles. I would not use PostgreSQL for large unstructured data such as video, images, sound files, xml documents, web-pages, especially if these files have their own highly variable, internal structure.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Postgresql is the best tool out there for relational data so I have to give it a high rating when it comes to analytics, data availability and consistency, so on and so forth. SQL is also a relatively consistent language so when it comes to building new tables and loading data in from the OLTP database, there are enough tools where we can perform ETL on a scalable basis.
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.
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.
The data queries are relatively quick for a small to medium sized table. With complex joins, and a wide and deep table however, the performance of the query has room for improvement.
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.
There are several companies that you can contract for technical support, like EnterpriseDB or Percona, both first level in expertise and commitment to the software.
But we do not have contracts with them, we have done all the way from googling to forums, and never have a problem that we cannot resolve or pass around. And for dozens of projects and more than 15 years now.
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
The online training is request based. Had there been recorded videos available online for potential users to benefit from, I could have rated it higher. The online documentation however is very helpful. The online documentation PDF is downloadable and allows users to pace their own learning. With examples and code snippets, the documentation is great starting point.
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.
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.
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.
Although the competition between the different databases is increasingly aggressive in the sense that they provide many improvements, new functionalities, compatibility with complementary components or environments, in some cases it requires that it be followed within the same family of applications that performs the company that develops it and that is not all bad, but being able to adapt or configure different programs, applications or other environments developed by third parties apart is what gives PostgreSQL a certain advantage and this diversification in the components that can be joined with it, is the reason why it is a great option to choose.
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.
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
Easy to administer so our DevOps team has only ever used minimal time to setup, tune, and maintain.
Easy to interface with so our Engineering team has only ever used minimal time to query or modify the database. Getting the data is straightforward, what we do with it is the bigger concern.