IBM Netezza Performance Server vs. Amazon Redshift

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
IBM Netezza Performance Server
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Netezza Performance Server (NPS) is an add-on data warehouse solution available on Cloud Pak for Data System platform, built over open source and optimized for High Performance Analytics with built-in hardware acceleration. Netezza Performance Server was previously named IBM Performance Server for PostgreSQL (IPS).N/A
Amazon Redshift
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Redshift is a hosted data warehouse solution, from Amazon Web Services.
$0.24
per GB per month
Pricing
IBM Netezza Performance ServerAmazon Redshift
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Redshift Managed Storage
$0.24
per GB per month
Current Generation
$0.25 - $13.04
per hour
Previous Generation
$0.25 - $4.08
per hour
Redshift Spectrum
$5.00
per terabyte of data scanned
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
IBM Netezza Performance ServerAmazon Redshift
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
IBM Netezza Performance ServerAmazon Redshift
Considered Both Products
IBM Netezza Performance Server
Chose IBM Netezza Performance Server
Data internet for IBM Netezza Performance Server is quite straightforward compared to Amazon Redshift due to it’s complexity of features.
Chose IBM Netezza Performance Server
With a simple user interface and access to IBM's online instructions, Netezza Performance Server is easy to operate. It also has built-in contribution facilities, as well as good customer
Chose IBM Netezza Performance Server
Netezza Performance Server is a virtuoso because it is available on IBM Cloud, AWS, and Azure, and also provides enhanced data security with self-encrypting disks and support for the Kerberos authentication mechanism with IBM PureData System for Analytics Netezza appliances.
Chose IBM Netezza Performance Server
Dataload and compression features are handled easier in Netezza compared to Teradata. 600+ users can operate at the same time with no issues whereas in Teradata it breaks after such a load. Easy to manage huge queries of code in Netezza compared to Teradata. ROI is effective …
Chose IBM Netezza Performance Server
Netezza is sufficient against similar products. It comes down to personal preference, I'd love to have the data objects popping up as I type but some people may not like it.
Chose IBM Netezza Performance Server
IBM Netezza Data Warehouse Appliances is well suited for use by a larger organization wanting to solve the business problems related to the collection, transformation, and dissemination of our company's business process information. These means the small data sets or data …
Amazon Redshift
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshifts has fewer features but at the same time, you also have some gains once it is running on AWS Cloud and it is really easy to set up. Besides that, in our case, it is a bit cheaper and we don't really need the extra features that you can find on Snowflake. Another …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift, BigQuery, and Snowflake are all fully managed data warehouse services that are designed to handle large volumes of structured data and support business intelligence and analytics efforts. However, Amazon Redshift has the upper hand with its cost-effective …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Biggest advantage of Amazon Redshift is it's part of the aws ecosystem. When tuned well it is also very cheap compared to something like snowflake. And compared to spark or databricks, Amazon Redshift is a solid warehouse that's well suited for tabular data. We use it for user …
Chose Amazon Redshift
We evaluated [Amazon] Redshift vs BigQuery vs Amazon EMR, back in 2014.
Back then BigQuery cost was slightly higher than that of [Amazon] Redshift price structure.
Amazon EMR, needs lots more management (Admin tasks) and EMR is designed to be ephemeral and not designed to be a …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Redshift is better cost wise and also since the whole ecosystem is set in AWS, it is wise to use redshift
Chose Amazon Redshift
Redshift leapfrogged Hive back when Hive was trying to figure out how to implement indexes, providing a more stable, standardized (postgres), easy to use (any postgres client), easier to administer, and scalable solution for querying server logs and raw usage data.

Now, …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift is one of the fastest service offerings available in the market now. Plus you get an advantage of using a cutting edge compute service offering from AWS. Other technologies are fast but not as good as Amazon Redshift, I would say. Our business is interested in …
Chose Amazon Redshift
1. Redshift has better compression (automated) consuming less space then competitors
2. Automated Vacuum Delete for having consistent performance
3. AWS introduced ra3 node types for simple separation of compute and storage
Chose Amazon Redshift
Its definitely an improvement on all fronts for our business needs. Again, our MySQL server was really slow and we needed a more efficient solution. It was a major upgrade, but it is much more expensive than an in house server. It was expected but I'd say that lots of headaches …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift supports multiple data formats including multiple structured data formats. And it is easy to implement a cluster if you do not have knowledge of data lake solution. Also when you do not need a lot of resources, you can just scale down so you do not have to spend …
Chose Amazon Redshift
The best advantage for us was the easy way to integrate our current solution in AWS to Amazon Redshift.
Chose Amazon Redshift
Google BigQuery, PostgreSQL and Snowflake
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift has a better UI, hands down. And it is easy to integrate with bigger tools like Talend. It has many issues when it comes to understanding the architect perspective like Toad, which has a better UI for architect data together. However, that is because we are not …
Chose Amazon Redshift
We like Snowflake for its separation of computing and storage and also the separation of data warehouse different users. We replaced Redshift with Snowflake. However, Snowflake is great for its pay for performance kind of methodology.
Chose Amazon Redshift
Azure SQL Database was discarded because of a less attractive licensing, costs, plus its integrates poorly with many of the Azure offerings as say Azure Data Factory - it is not a true ETL yet. Also, the rest of the tools used were of Open Source type and it did not look like a …
Chose Amazon Redshift
The main reason we chose Redshift was because of the cost-effectiveness of running and maintaining the warehouse.
Chose Amazon Redshift
It works on the cloud and we use the platform Dbeaver which is very unique and easy to maintain. There are very limited tools of this kind but the security issues are pretty high within those tools.
Chose Amazon Redshift
As our applications are hosted on AWS service, Redshift is the best option for us. Also, it provide a near to real-time performance on limited datasets and less complex queries. High availability is the major concern for any growing business and AWS is the best option for this. …
Chose Amazon Redshift
We are currently on Redshift, because it was out before Snowflake. However, Snowflake looks promising. It's the new shiny toy that gives options that Redshift does not provide for. The big thing is that storage and compute can be scaled separately, whereas you cannot do that in …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Most of our stack is on AWS, so while Snowflake and BigQuery was a viable option from a performance perspective, it was easier to integrate with RedShift. We considered hosting SQL Server on AWS or using Amazon RDS (Postgres or MySQL), however, the self-service aspect of …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Snowflake supports semi-structured data types and provided solutions to manage/process the semi-structured data. It supported sharing data between the different accounts and makes it easy in the scale and scale down process. Snowflake doesn't limit users on the database.
Chose Amazon Redshift
Amazon Redshift is much easier to set up and start using. It interacts well with the PostgreSQL client (psql) and shares certain basic data dictionary, and people familiar with PostgreSQL feel right at home. The cluster is part of AWS services offering, and it works well with …
Chose Amazon Redshift
Some organizations use PostgreSQL as an OLAP store. PostgreSQL offers a modern SQL dialect, data types, and features that Redshift lacks. RDS is a great managed PostgreSQL product. However, PostgreSQL is a poor choice for a data warehouse. It's row-oriented storage requires …
Best Alternatives
IBM Netezza Performance ServerAmazon Redshift
Small Businesses
Google BigQuery
Google BigQuery
Score 8.7 out of 10
Google BigQuery
Google BigQuery
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Cloudera Enterprise Data Hub
Cloudera Enterprise Data Hub
Score 9.0 out of 10
Snowflake
Snowflake
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Oracle Exadata
Oracle Exadata
Score 9.8 out of 10
Snowflake
Snowflake
Score 8.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
IBM Netezza Performance ServerAmazon Redshift
Likelihood to Recommend
9.3
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
IBM Netezza Performance ServerAmazon Redshift
Likelihood to Recommend
Netezza Performance Server enhances the data scientist's ability to rapidly design, train, and deploy machine learning models in the database. Netezza Performance Server is essential for implementing cognitive machine learning, providing data scientists with in-database analytics, and enabling them to collaborate on a single platform. Netezza Performance Server supports the use of built-in Spark as well as Python and R for rapid and sophisticated data science and machine learning adoption at scale.
Read full review
If the number of connections is expected to be low, but the amounts of data are large or projected to grow it is a good solutions especially if there is previous exposure to PostgreSQL. Speaking of Postgres, Redshift is based on several versions old releases of PostgreSQL so the developers would not be able to take advantage of some of the newer SQL language features. The queries need some fine-tuning still, indexing is not provided, but playing with sorting keys becomes necessary. Lastly, there is no notion of the Primary Key in Redshift so the business must be prepared to explain why duplication occurred (must be vigilant for)
Read full review
Pros
  • The speed of operations is really second to none
  • The data control aspect is really effective and very useful
  • Stability and no latency issues notices during operations
Read full review
  • Redshift is fully managed. Small teams do not have the resources to maintain a cluster. CloudWatch metrics are provided out-of-the-box, and it is easy to configure alarms.
  • Redshift's console allows you to easily inspect and manage queries, and manage the performance of the cluster.
  • Redshift is ubiquitous; many products (e.g., ETL services) integrate with it out-of-the-box.
  • Writing .csvs to S3 and querying them through Redshift Spectrum is convenient.
Read full review
Cons
  • The cost is expensive for medium-sized and smaller companies.
  • IBM could bring back the technical account managers.
  • The procurement process is a hassle.
Read full review
  • It could benefit from adding data integrity and programming tools common to other database management systems.
  • Amazon Redshift is based on PostgreSQL 8.0.2. That version of PostgreSQL was released in December 2006. While PostgreSQL was much improved since then, the new features were not implemented in Redshift. Many basic features are missing from it.
  • Primary keys can be declared but not enforced. Referential integrity (foreign keys) can be declared but not enforced. UNIQUE and CHECK constraints are not supported and cannot be declared.
  • IDENTITY can be declared on a column, and Redshift will put unique values into it. However: IDENTITY values in the newly inserted rows won’t be incremental or sequential. To implement a sequential number, you need to write your own custom code.
  • There are no stored procedures in Redshift. We are writing SQL script files, and then parsing and running them one statement at a time from a Python program. This also enabled us to implement execution-time error logging.
  • In SQL scripts, to check for the row count of affected rows, a complicated join query against some system tables or views has to be executed.
  • Data Control Language (DCL) does not exist. No statements like IF, WHILE, DO, RAISERROR, etc.
  • On performance of views… Views do not “pass-through” a query parameter which is a potential problem for performance.
  • When selecting against a view with the WHERE clause outside of the view, the inner query of the view will be executed first without consideration for the WHERE clause, and only then the WHERE clause will be applied.
  • Certain clauses of SQL work many times faster than other clauses. So be careful and test your statements for performance earlier rather than later, especially if working with a large data set.
  • There was a situation when DELETE FROM JOIN was unacceptably slow. Replacing JOIN with the USING clause made DELETE instantaneous.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
Overall it serves all our aspects of data management like data cleaning, data manipulation, and data reporting on the cloud platform. We can create stored procedures and triggers in it very easily as all the options are self suggested in it. We can easily attach the results of ARS to the other tools as well for drawing the statistical results.
Read full review
Support Rating
No answers on this topic
The support was great and helped us in a timely fashion. We did use a lot of online forums as well, but the official documentation was an ongoing one, and it did take more time for us to look through it. We would have probably chosen a competitor product had it not been for the great support
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
With a simple user interface and
access to IBM's online instructions, Netezza Performance Server is easy to
operate. It also has built-in contribution facilities, as well as good customer
support, to make the DBA's job easier.
Read full review
We evaluated [Amazon] Redshift vs BigQuery vs Amazon EMR, back in 2014. Back then BigQuery cost was slightly higher than that of [Amazon] Redshift price structure. Amazon EMR, needs lots more management (Admin tasks) and EMR is designed to be ephemeral and not designed to be a data store. [Amazon] Redshift was ideal with the price structure, performance and ROI[.]
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • It allows us to work together simultaneously in the database to query our custom results.
  • It requires users to know the object name as it does not pop up in their text editor. Thus, users take more time in writing queries.
Read full review
  • It allows for an almost seamless integration of our data which can then be used by other departments for analytical purposes.
  • No in house resources are needed for keeping the data alive and performing backup/migration tasks of the data in its end state.
Read full review
ScreenShots