DB2 is a family of relational database software solutions offered by IBM. It includes standard Db2 and Db2 Warehouse editions, either deployable on-cloud, or on-premise.
$0
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
Microsoft SQL Server
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft SQL Server is a relational database.
$1,418
Per License
Pricing
Db2
MongoDB
Microsoft SQL Server
Editions & Modules
Db2 on Cloud Lite
$0
Db2 on Cloud Standard
$99
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex One
$898
per month
Db2 on Cloud Enterprise
$946
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex for AWS
2,957
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex
$3,451
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex Performance
13,651
per month
Db2 Warehouse on Cloud Flex Performance for AWS
13,651
per month
Db2 Standard Edition
Contact Sales
Db2 Advanced Edition
Contact Sales
Shared
$0
per month
Serverless
$0.10million reads
million reads
Dedicated
$57
per month
Subscription
$1,418.00
Per License
Enterprise
$13,748.00
Per License
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Db2
MongoDB
Microsoft SQL Server
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Optional
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Fully managed, global cloud database on AWS, Azure, and GCP
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Db2
MongoDB
Microsoft SQL Server
Considered Multiple Products
Db2
Verified User
Engineer
Chose Db2
It is faster and the transactions are much more safer and reliable if I compare it with the two SQL database I mentioned above, as far as MongoDB is concerned it completely depends upon the requirement of the project, if a SQL or a NoSQL database is more suitable for a project.
Db2 for i SQL is much more standard compliant than SQL Servers dialect. And with Visual Explain its much easier to optimize SQL queries for optimal performance.
Oracle and Microsoft are the ones that we have more to compare with and they are on par with Db2. postgres is the small solution that usually we leave behind and move to Db2. Mongo is the one that is different from what I used Db2 for but I know it has the capability to use …
Db2 provides a combination of performance and scalability. Security wise, Db2 is always a first choice, especially for the systems where security can't be compromised. For mainframe systems, there is no other DB in the market that can perform better than Db2. If an organization …
IBM Db2 in my organization has had overall a much better consistency rating and effectiveness. Turnaround times are shorter and the need for human intervention is significantly less. We find Db2 to be more reliable overall and a better experience to use. In terms on real time …
From working with other databases, I always felt that Db2 was at the top of its game in all aspects of performance, recoverability, and stability—pretty much everything you want out of an Enterprise database system.
Access controls, encryption, and auditing
capabilities are just a few of the strong security features supported by IBM Db2.I think Strong security features are offered by it, such as integration with Active Directory and LDAP enterprise security infrastructures, row and column …
I have experience with the above-mentioned similar products but mainly with MySQL. In terms of speed and query optimization capabilities, Db2 is far ahead in comparison to MySQL. Because of various issues like scalability, multiple departments hitting DB together causing …
Compared to similar products, Db2 shared common Relational DataBase Management System (RDBMS) features such as SQL support, data integrity, Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation and Durability (ACID) Compliance and concurrency control. However, the Db2 is designed for scalability, …
Tried tested true and dependable. Main distinguishing factor however is the ongoing time in which it has been relied on, the preference by some stakeholders for ensuring sensitive data security, and its flexibility
Db2 is one of the oldest and mature rdbms available in the market. IBM products were already been used in the organization. Cost effective in terms of licensing.
We tried MS SQL. However, MS SQL is one of the most widely used in enterprise management. However, that is mostly compatible with Microsoft services and does not provide much strength with outside applications. db2 is also open-independent and compatible with cross-platforms, …
We are working for our product , where we were using different database but that database was not fast our work So we switch to IBM Db2 for better result.
DB2 works as good as any of these databases. It is cheaper to run than any of them. It is more solid and stable that SQL server or Netezza. It is very comparable to Oracle for reliabilty.
But for administration, Netezza is a little simpler because it has no indexes. Netezza is …
DB2 was more scalable and easily configurable than other products we evaluated and short listed in terms of functionality and pricing. IBM also had a good demo on premise and provided us a sandbox experience to test out and play with the product and DB2 at that time came out …
Db2 is one of the best relational databases I’ve used. It has the ability to maintain large amount of data and execution of million transactions in fraction of a second. If you use it properly, an organization can build a database with thousands of tables, and it can provide …
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.
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 …
Verified User
Project Manager
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is document oriented, and fits our goals best.
I have been a SQL Server focused professional for over 20 years, so SQL Server is my first choice. I have experience and comfort, and the ability to get up to speed quickly. Oracle has been too expensive, though I think it has performed similar to SQL Server in the applications …
I've used many DBMS during my career including Oracle, DB2, SQLite and FoxPro. Since I'm more a technical guy, I personally prefer MS SQL Server more than others for its ease of use and development tools and features.
Microsoft SQL server is easy to use and to access by everyone, (new users), can learn very easily. Most of our company uses SQL Server because it uses and joins with one of the best commands used in the industry. With MongoDB we can't use the joins so this is the plus point in …
Microsoft SQL Server is a comprehensive solution as transactional database, data warehouse, analytics, reporting, and ETL. It also integrates with the cloud well (Azure). The ease of use and setup makes this better than Oracle Database because the query syntax is also different …
Microsoft SQL Server is one of the fastest RDBMS systems available in the market. Pricing is a bit on the higher side but all the features it provides pretty much justifies it. It can be integrated with a large number of frameworks thus enabling to work on multiple frameworks …
Microsoft SQL Server is still the industry standard for the type of development we do, and the types of applications that we use. Almost every developer or analyst we hire has at least a reasonable grounding in the use of SQL servers, and it is almost universally compatible …
Microsoft SQL Server is a DBMS that can be used in any situation, from small projects to big ones, and the latest versions now can be used in several OS platforms. It is a great product with many features over its competitors. It's a mature and robust product. It's easy and …
SQL Server is better for large databases containing structured relational data. It makes it easy to group and order, to sum and create tables of data from any data stored in a table or related tables. While Dynamodb is very good at STORING huge amounts of unstructured data, it …
Microsoft SQL Server stacks up pretty well - it is well established and has a large userbase. The main reason we selected Microsoft SQL Server over any other RDMS was because of its well established place in the market for such tools and large number of users (easy to hire …
SQL Server is way ahead of the support available and documentation available. Oracle should invest heavily in bringing good technical books on MySQL rather than putting documentation online and expect users to go through it.
Easy to manage all tools without extra cost is a big …
Microsoft SQL Server is more secure and offers more robustness for our data. SQL Server is also great because of its integration with Microsoft Visual Studio. It's also great because developers can build reports and stuff like that from scratch. It's faster compared to PostgreSQ…
Microsoft is more appropriate for the requirements of this particular organisation due to its ability to handle structured data efficiently and the fact that it is already widely used.
I have primarily used it as the basis for a SIS - but I have migrated more than a few systems from there database systems to DB2 (Filemaker, MySQL, etc.). DB2 does have a better structural approach, as opposed to Filemaker, which allows for more data consistency, but this can also lead to an inflexibility that can sometimes be counterintuitive when attempting to compensate for the flexibility of the work environment as Schools tend to have an all in one approach.
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.
Microsoft SQL is ubiquitous, while MySQL runs under the hood all over the place. Microsoft SQL is the platform taught in colleges and certification courses and is the one most likely to be used by businesses because it is backed by Microsoft. Its interface is friendly (well, as pleasant as SQL can be) and has been used by so many for so long that resources are freely available if you encounter any issues.
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.
Microsoft SQL Server Enterprise edition has a high cost but is the only edition which supports SQL Always On Availability Groups. It would be nice to include this feature in the Standard version.
Licensing of Microsoft SQL Server is a quite complex matter, it would be good to simplify licensing in the future. For example, per core vs per user CAL licensing, as well as complex licensing scenarios in the Cloud and on Edge locations.
It would be good to include native tools for converting Oracle, DB2, Postgresql and MySQL/MariaDB databases (schema and data) for import into Microsoft SQL Server.
The DB2 database is a solid option for our school. We have been on this journey now for 3-4 years so we are still adapting to what it can do. We will renew our use of DB2 because we don’t see. Major need to change. Also, changing a main database in a school environment is a major project, so we’ll avoid that if possible.
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.
We understand that the Microsoft SQL Server will continue to advance, offering the same robust and reliable platform while adding new features that enable us, as a software center, to create a superior product. That provides excellent performance while reducing the hardware requirements and the total cost of ownership of our solution.
You have to be well versed in using the technology, not only from a GUI interface but from a command line interface to successfully use this software to its fullest.
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.
SQL Server mostly 'just works' or generates error messages to help you sort out the trouble. You can usually count on the product to get the job done and keep an eye on your potential mistakes. Interaction with other Microsoft products makes operating as a Windows user pretty straight forward. Digging through the multitude of dialogs and wizards can be a pain, but the answer is usually there somewhere.
I have never had DB2 go down unexpectedly. It just works solidly every day. When I look at the logs, sometimes DB2 has figured out there was a need to build an index. Instead of waiting for me to do it, the database automatically created the index for me. At my current company, we have had zero issues for the past 8 years. We have upgrade the server 3 times and upgraded the OS each time and the only thing we saw was that DB2 got better and faster. It is simply amazing.
The performances are exceptional if you take care to maintain the database. It is a very powerful tool and at the same time very easy to use. In our installation, we expect a DB machine on the mainframe with access to the database through ODBC connectors directly from branch servers, with fabulous end users experience.
Easily the best product support team. :) Whenever we have questions, they have answered those in a timely manner and we like how they go above and beyond to help.
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.
We managed to handle most of our problems by looking into Microsoft's official documentation that has everything explained and almost every function has an example that illustrates in detail how a particular functionality works. Just like PowerShell has the ability to show you an example of how some cmdlet works, that is the case also here, and in my opinion, it is a very good practice and I like it.
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.
Other than SQL taking quite a bit of time to actually install there are no problems with installation. Even on hardware that has good performance SQL can still take close to an hour to install a typical server with management and reporting services.
DB2 was more scalable and easily configurable than other products we evaluated and short listed in terms of functionality and pricing. IBM also had a good demo on premise and provided us a sandbox experience to test out and play with the product and DB2 at that time came out better than other similar products.
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.
[Microsoft] SQL Server has a much better community and professional support and is overall just a more reliable system with Microsoft behind it. I've used MySQL in the past and SQL Server has just become more comfortable for me and is my go to RDBMS.
By using DB2 only to support my IzPCA activities, my knowledge here is somewhat limited.
Anyway, from what I was able to understand, DB2 is extremely scallable.
Maybe the information below could serve as an example of scalability.
Customer have an huge mainframe environment, 13x z15 CECs, around 80 LPARs, and maybe more than 50 Sysplexes (I am not totally sure about this last figure...)
Today we have 7 IzPCA databases, each one in a distinct Syplex.
Plans are underway to have, at the end, an small LPAR, with only one DB2 sub-system, and with only one database, then transmit the data from a lot of other LPARs, and then process all the data in this only one database.
The IzPCA collect process (read the data received, manipulate it, and insert rows in the tables) today is a huge process, demanding many elapsed hours, and lots of CPU.
Almost 100% of the tables are PBR type, insert jobs run in parallel, but in 4 of the 7 database, it is a really a huge and long process.
Combining the INSERTs loads from the 7 databases in only one will be impossible.......,,,,
But, IzPCA recently introduced a new feature, called "Continuous Collector".
By using that feature, small amounts of data will be transmited to the central LPAR at every 5 minutes (or even less), processed immediately,in a short period of time, and withsmall use of CPU, instead of one or two transmissions by day, of very large amounts of data and the corresponding collect jobs occurring only once or twice a day, with long elapsed times, and huge comsumption of CPU
I suspect the total CPU seconds consumed will be more or less the same in both cases, but in the new method it will occur insmall bursts many times a day!!
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
Increased accuracy - We went from multiple users having different versions of an Excel spreadsheet to a single source of truth for our reporting.
Increased Efficiency - We can now generate reports at any time from a single source rather than multiple users spending their time collating data and generating reports.
Improved Security - Enterprise level security on a dedicated server rather than financial files on multiple laptop hard drives.