IBM Cloud Databases are open source data stores for enterprise application development. Built on a Kubernetes foundation, they offer a database platform for serverless applications. They are designed to scale storage and compute resources seamlessly without being constrained by the limits of a single server. Natively integrated and available in the IBM Cloud console, these databases are now available through a consistent consumption, pricing, and interaction model. They aim to provide a cohesive…
N/A
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
per month
Pricing
IBM Cloud Databases
MongoDB
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Shared
$0
per month
Serverless
$0.10million reads
million reads
Dedicated
$57
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM Cloud Databases
MongoDB
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level 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 Cloud Databases
MongoDB
Considered Both Products
IBM Cloud Databases
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose IBM Cloud Databases
When launching the system, using multiple services would have been inefficient, so we consolidated it on IBM Cloud Databases. We regularly compared the services provided by IBM Cloud Databases' PaaS with those of other cloud services, but decided that there was no need to go to …
a powerful storm disrupted power supplies and network connections to the data center hosting our critical databases. Despite the external factors causing widespread service disruptions, IBM Cloud Databases demonstrated its exceptional reliability. The auto-failover feature …
UI is easier to use and flexible. AWS EBS is very simple to use and do upgrades and monitor the upgrades easily. I also recommend IBM to implement these.
The reason why I choose IBM Cloud Databases is that the IBM cloud toolset is already being used in other functions of the company and by using IBM Cloud Databases, the other cloud tools are better embedded and integrated. If the company is set to use amazon tools, I would go …
IBM cloud database has a lot of features than amazon dynamodb. This is my personal opinion. But I can't say amazon dynamodb is a bad one. But IBM cloud database has a lot of securities and file storage and backup features than amazon dynamodb. But both are good in their own …
I have used Amazon DynamoDm and compared to IBM Compose, I would say IBM Compose is affordable, easy to use and very fast as well. I would opt IBM Cloud Databases given the two choices
they do a great job at handling our business needs. we like what they offer and how they respond to questions we provide. they do a lot of great things that help our business thrive and stay ahead. we are grateful for how this compnay has responded to our unique requests and …
We already had existing contracts with IBM and Microsoft, so those made the most sense to verify. Both are good options for data storage. Since much of our existing Dbs are IBM related, we stuck with IBM cloud dbs, just so that the SQL code would port well. Additionally, we …
The kubernete service is the front end for the transactions of our core systems and our cloud databases (Postgres and DB2) are the persistence storage.
It is very similar to the way on which we operated before except that we don't have to worry about high availability, backups …
AWS RDS & Oracle OCI. AWS RDS has a wider range of databases but at a higher cost. IBM Compose has fewer databases but is perfect for data related solutions like data warehousing (IBM Db2 AI enabled Warehouse is a GREAT product!)
Cloudant is HIPAA compliant and replicated out of the box. We recommend use of Cloudant vs Mongodb for that purpose. We use Redis only as a session cache.
We have Cassandra database that is currently not available as part of IBM Cloud Databases. We ended up using classic infrastructure IaaS to host our Cassandra server.
I did compare IBM Compose for PostgreSQL with PostgreSQL offerings available from Amazon and Google. IBM Compose was judged easier to provision and maintain.
I'm pleased with the additional more granular provisioning flexibility and more favorable cost structure that has come …
While at the time, Amazon RDS did/does not create Mongo databases, I was able to set up many with PostgreSQL databases with the same ease as IBM Compose. However, IBM compose does seem to offer a more intuitive application control panel. Amazon RDS costs run on a server …
We selected Compose because we initially thought that they would provide great support, and that they would bring encryption at rest within months. That has not materialized yet.
We also thought that the cost, while far from being the lowest, was reasonable.
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 …
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 …
Implementing new features for application becomes simpler with MongoDB since you don't need to run database migration scripts just to for example add new fields to database only to store some extra data. This is especially good for the deployment phase. Only new version of …
MongoDB is a robust and scalable db which offers a lot of cool features out of the box. Being open sourced and backed by a great community with developer tools like mongo compass , it was a no-brainer to go for it. It has connectors in almost all programming languages and is a …
I would say Cassandra is better than MongoDB since it has the backing of Facebook to it. Its inherent properties like versioning put it into the other category of columnar databases, but it's one of the NoSQL databases which you should definitely consider for your organization …
This tool is only capable of reading real-time data very smoothly. The transition was also pretty easy and quick. Syntax is also very easy and comfortable to learn and use.
The main reason for selecting is that it works very fast under the Intellijet module environment and we …
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 …
Snowflake and Redshift are much more mature and have been around longer. MongoDB is definitely much less expensive and if you are in a startup, this is an almost for-sure option. Redshift can be slow and Mongo is much faster. However, losing the relational database aspect could …
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 …
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 …
It does not belong to certain cloud platforms. MongoDB is an independent program that works with any cloud platform including Amazon Web Services and the Google Cloud Platform. For companies who want to maintain a cloud agnostic structure, MongoDB is a great choice for NoSQL …
MongoDB and Cassandra are both database system from the NoSQL family. MongoDB can be used in lots of use cases while Cassandra has a specific usage. There are some features that MongoDB provides efficiently while Cassandra doesn't and vice-versa. Like, you can update the data …
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 …
Less Appropriate Scenario: 1) Small Scale or Low Budget Projects 2) Organizations with limited expertise in cloud technologies may find the learning curve steep, especially if they are not familiar with the IBM Cloud platform 3) If database requirements are highly dynamic and change frequently, the comprehensive features and management provided by IBM Cloud Databases might be overkill. A more flexible, self-managed solution could be preferable for adapting to rapid changes.
MongoDB [is] great at storing JSON data grouped into "collections". In this format, you can store any JSON documents and conveniently categorize them by collections. The JSON document contained in MongoDB is called binary JSON or BSON and, like any other document in this format, is unstructured. Therefore, unlike traditional DBMS, any kind of data can be stored in collections, and this flexibility is combined with the horizontal scalability of the database. It should be noted that MongoDB does not have links between documents and “collections” (this is partially compensated by the Database Reference - links in the DBMS, but this does not completely solve the problem). As a result, a situation arises in which there is a certain set of data that is not related to other information in the database, and there is no way to combine data from different documents. In SQL systems, this would be an elementary task.
The ease of setup was effortless. For anyone with development experience, a few simple questions such as name and login data will get you set up.
The web application to manage cluster settings, billing settings and even introspect the data was simple and most importantly worked all the time. This can not always be said for web interfaces of other products.
Easy to learn. When I picked up MongoDB for the first time, I had little background in database management or modeling. If you have a background in javascript (and JSON)... then you can figure out how to use MongoDB pretty fast.
Fast performance.
It's relatively easy to set up in certain environments because there are lots of ready-made solutions out there.
There's a lot of support in the existing ecosystem for it —, especially in the node.js realm.
Query syntax is pretty simple to grasp and utilize.
Aggregate functions are powerful.
Scaling options.
Documentation is quite good and versioned for each release.
Better cost reports, before just increasing to another tier, thus increasing the price. This is critical for early stage startups, where budget is tight.
Add more data center options. As a comparison, a similar service, Aiven.io has dozen more options than Compose (basically all big cloud providers). We moved from AWS to Digital Ocean, which made us stop using Compose, since Compose forces us to be either on IBM or AWS.
MongoDB is one of the most famous non-relational databases in the world, there are famous active projects that use this database. I think that the same company that develops the database gives you the online induction totally free is something that really is very positive. Accounts with a first-class support to be able to relate the correct implementation of the database, in addition to teaching you the best practices to optimize your projects, I believe that with this decision it is more than obvious which is the best decision at the time of seeing with which database to work.
IBM Cloud Databases' pricing structure is easy to understand, and if you choose the right product, you can operate your system at minimal cost. Although there is ample documentation available, there doesn't seem to be a user community running on it, so specific usage know-how and troubleshooting can sometimes take longer than expected.
It is one of the reasons why we prefer it to store documents in a JSON-style format, to access the desired document very quickly regardless of its size, to be readable by human eyes, and to be easily scalable and manageable.
Support is helpful enough, but we haven't always had questions answered in a satisfactory manner. At one time we realized that Compose had stopped taking database snapshots on its two-per-day schedule, and had in fact not taken one for many days. Support recognized the problem and it was fixed, but the lack of proactive checks and the inability to share exactly what happened has caused us to look elsewhere for production work loads
I have reached multiple times to the MongoDB community for the help and they have provided each and easy solution for every problem. Over the internet and on stack overflow many people responds over the challenges. Now this tool is very much used in every company and projects so internally many people are there to give a support.
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 reason why I choose IBM Cloud Databases is that the IBM cloud toolset is already being used in other functions of the company and by using IBM Cloud Databases, the other cloud tools are better embedded and integrated. If the company is set to use amazon tools, I would go for rds.
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 quick retrieval later. This is something we can't easily do with MySQL. On this smaller database, MongoDB also lets us retrieve data more quickly with its fast and efficient querying.
We can make more open and flexible systems due to its easy adaptation to new evolutions in web applications.
In the latest versions it offers support for different transactions and we could carry out real tests related to the concurrency of the application.
MongoDB allows you to have distributed clusters, which improves the speed of the queries by reducing the latency that exists between the database cluster and the service that executes the query.