Google Cloud SQL is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) with the capability and functionality of MySQL.
$0
per core hour
MongoDB Atlas
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
MongoDB Atlas is the company's automated managed cloud service, supplying automated deployment, provisioning and patching, and other features supporting database monitoring and optimization.
$57
per month
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
Google Cloud SQL
MongoDB Atlas
PostgreSQL
Editions & Modules
License - Express
$0
per core hour
License - Web
$0.01134
per core hour
Storage - for backups
$.08
per month per GB
HA Storage - for backups
$.08
per month per GB
Storage - HDD storage capacity
$.09
per month per GB
License - Standard
$0.13
per core hour
Storage - SSD storage capacity
$.17
per month per GB
HA Storage - HDD storage capacity
$.18
per month per GB
HA Storage - SSD storage capacity
$.34
per month per GB
License - Enterprise
$0.47
per core hour
Memory
$5.11
per month per GB
HA Memory
$10.22
per month per GB
vCPUs
$30.15
per month per vCPU
HA vCPUs
$60.30
per month per vCPU
Dedicated Clusters
$57
per month
Dedicated Multi-Reigon Clusters
$95
per month
Shared Clusters
Free
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Google Cloud SQL
MongoDB Atlas
PostgreSQL
Free Trial
Yes
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
Pricing varies with editions, engine, and settings, including how much storage, memory, and CPU you provision. Cloud SQL offers per-second billing.
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Google Cloud SQL
MongoDB Atlas
PostgreSQL
Considered Multiple Products
Google Cloud SQL
Verified User
Vice-President
Chose Google Cloud SQL
Given this is a hosted solution, database a service it helps in removing the effort of maintaining these databases manually. Eases out the pain of upgrading, applying security patches and keeping things running without having to worry about missed changes. The database can be …
- AWS RDS and Aurora is a just a notch above Google Cloud SQL as it provide boost in performance when required - Google Cloud SQL Mysql Engine is Cloud based and better than native Mysql as it provides management of the server out of box - Compared to a MongoDB it has a low …
Easier learning, simple features and settings with a very user-friendly application environment and flexible prices make Google Cloud [SQL] a pioneering option over competitors
Google Cloud SQL is very similar to other cloud provider options. AWS and DigitalOcean are direct competitors, While Azure is focusing on their own products. At cloud provider level, it's a matter of choosing the provider, and this product will not play a significant role on …
When choosing a NoSQL, open source database, MongoDB is the clear winner from an implementation standpoint. For databases that are better suited for highly-organized data, a traditional database engine like MySQL, PostgreSQL, or Oracle's RDBMS may be a better choice. When the …
In general, they all compete against each other, and each solution has its own advantages and disadvantages. While MongoDB Atlas was the way to go for some cases, however, other databases were more fit for some services that MongoDB Atlas, especially if they were managed by us, …
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 …
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.
Does what it promises well, for instance, as a sidecar for the main enterprise data warehouse. However, I would not recommend using it as the main data warehouse, particularly due to the heavy business logic, as other dedicated tools are more suitable for ensuring scalable operations in terms of change management and multi-developer adjustments.
It is good if you: 1. Have unstructured data that you need to save (since it is NoSQL DB) 2. You don't have time or knowledge to setup the MongoDB Atlas, the managed service is the way to go (Atlas) 3. If you need a multi regional DB across the world
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.
Generous free and trial plan for evaluation or test purposes.
New versions of MongoDB are able to be deployed with Atlas as soon as they're released—deploying recent versions to other services can be difficult or risky.
As the key supporters of the open source MongoDB project, the service runs in a highly optimized and performant manner, making it much easier than having to do the work internally.
For someone new, it could be challenging using MongoDB Atlas. Some official video tutorials could help a lot
Pricing calculation is sometimes misleading and unpredictable, maybe better variables could be used to provide better insights about the cost
Since it is a managed service, we have limited control over the instances and some issues we faced we couldn't;'t know about without reaching out to the support and got fixed from their end. So more control over the instance might help
The way of managing users and access is somehow confusing. Maybe it could be placed somewhere easy to access
As with other cloud tools, users must learn a new terminology to navigate the various tools and configurations, and understand Google Cloud's configuration structure to perform even the most basic operations. So the learning curve is quite steep, but after a few months, it gets easier to maintain.
I would give it 8. Good stuff: 1. Easy to use in terms of creating cluster, integrating with Databases, setting up backups and high availability instance, using the monitors they provide to check cluster status, managing users at company level, configure multiple replicas and cross region databases. Things hard to use: 1. roles and permissions at DB level. 2. Calculate expected costs
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.
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.
GCP support in general requires a support agreement. For small organizations like us, this is not affordable or reasonable. It would help if Google had a support mechanism for smaller organizations. It was a steep learning curve for us because this was our first entry into the cloud database world. Better documentation also would have helped.
We love MongoDB support and have great relationship with them. When we decided to go with MongoDB Atlas, they sent a team of 5 to our company to discuss the process of setting up a Mongo cluster and walked us through. when we have questions, we create a ticket and they will respond very quickly
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.
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.
Unlike other products, Google Cloud SQL has very flexible features that allow it to be selected for a free trial account so that the product can be analyzed and tested before purchasing it. Integration capabilities with most of the web services tools are easier regarding Google Cloud SQL with its nature and support.
MongoDB is a great product but on premise deployments can be slow. So we turned to Atlas. We also looked at Redis Labs and we use Redis as our side cache for app servers. But we love using MongoDB Atlas for cloud deployments, especially for prototyping because we can get started immediately. And the cost is low and easy to justify.
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.
Improved integration with Google Cloud, we have set up some automations with Google Workspace, and we have noticed that the raw data sharing between them is very fast as compared to using some other managed database, not sure why.
Due to some downtime during maintenance, we had to set up a relatively small service which ingested the data while this went down and dumped it when it came back up. So this was a negative impact on our ROI, since now we had to remedy this downtime against the same profit margins
It was cheaper than the legacy aws service since we needed large database instances
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.