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
Oracle Database
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Oracle Database, currently in edition 23ai, is a converged, multimodel database management system. It is designed to simplify development for AI, microservices, graph, document, spatial, and relational applications.
$0.05
per hour
Microsoft SQL Server
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft SQL Server is a relational database.
$1,418
Per License
Pricing
MongoDB
Oracle Database
Microsoft SQL Server
Editions & Modules
Shared
$0
per month
Serverless
$0.10million reads
million reads
Dedicated
$57
per month
Oracle Base Database Service - Standard
$0.0538
per hour
Oracle Base Database Service - Enterprise
$0.1075
per hour
Oracle Base Database Service - High Performance
$0.2218
per hour
Standard Edition
Contact Sales
Enterprise Edition
Contact Sales
Personal Edition
Contact Sales
Subscription
$1,418.00
Per License
Enterprise
$13,748.00
Per License
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
MongoDB
Oracle Database
Microsoft SQL Server
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
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
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.
Relational DB are not efficient when storing data structure like JSON. Different data structure can be stored without defining the schema. Most relational db might store data like Json as blobs. One single entry would store the entire JSON as blob and you can't query the …
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 …
We chose MongoDB because it fit our specific use cases better than the other two NoSQL products that I've identified. There are some use cases where those products would be better. Be sure to use the right tool for the job, for us, it was MongoDB, for you it might not be.
Verified User
Project Manager
Chose MongoDB
MongoDB is document oriented, and fits our goals best.
Oracle Database
Verified User
Engineer
Chose Oracle Database
We currently use all of the above database technologies in different applications, but where the application is mission-critical we use Oracle. Microsoft SQL Server is good for canned applications such as back-office or HR. MySQL does not have the same level of logging or …
I have selected Oracle database from other databases as this database is relational database which stored the data in structural and tabular format which is better than any other databases which I have used in my carrier. Also MongoDB is no SQL database where we can use SQL …
Oracle is placed in a good spot against its competitors. It has advantages over its competitors in its legacy stability and high availability. A common engine to handle relational, JSON, Vector, and graph data makes it more cost-effective. Given all the good features, the …
The Oracle database was selected before I started working on the project, so I can't tell the reasons behind the choice. However, it was recognized as the best suited for holding several million records for related entities and was preferred over NoSQL options.
Oracle 12c is good for all business applications but still consider Microsoft SQLServer for internal/other applications to save on cost.
Verified User
Consultant
Chose Oracle Database
Oracle Database is best in business, consistent, and robust. Even the standard version is sufficient for the best performance. The main thing is I have never seen corruption and in my opinion, it is best when used with Linux.
We use SQL Server for other modules of our MLFF Tolling System, so I work on a daily basic with both database engines. Oracle is recognized and distinguished by scalability and performance, ensuring a secure environment to host our critical data that comes from multiple …
In my opinion, Oracle Database is highly reliable, has better performance with large databases and little to no maintenance once everything is setup. Also, recovery of the Oracle database is much simpler and easier.
Microsoft SQL is just as stable and almost as sellable with a much lower cost of ownership (staff and licensing). But as our primary application doesn't support Microsoft SQL we had to license Oracle.
Exadata is expensive and we decided to switch to 12c for the sake of consolidating and keep up with Oracles initiative to move towards cloud. Maybe in the future.
Oracle Database is among the easiest to integrate with, program against, have a reliable cluster with DR, and has the most understood and well-documented databases. It suits really well if the software shop is primarily Java-based, and deals with large volumes of data with a …
Oracle is more of an enterprise-level database than Access and SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise isn't getting developed much (some people wonder how close it is to end of life) but SQL Server is miles ahead of Oracle IMO in terms of user experience and comparable in terms of …
We use IBM DB2 in AS400 to handle part of our accounting system and our legacy ERP. We are migrating all functionalities to Oracle Database 12c because it is more secure and stable. We have some applications using SQL Server but we want to handle those systems in it because at …
Oracle Database 12c is head and shoulders above SQL Server for what we need it to do, and the performance is much better. Oracle Database has been in place at our company for a while, and it was really a no brainer going to Oracle Database version 12c instead of another …
Oracle is serving a different segment with respect to those above. Till now, we have stuck with Oracle and continued to support our internal customers. Other DBs are serving a few targeted applications by a few application teams.
While I was not available for the original selection, the reason I have fought to keep it in place and not change is mainly due to performance and security. The company has sought other options, however, I continue to maintain that this is the best course of action in our …
Oracle 12c is able to support daily operations that might be required. Of course, Exadata is a powerful machine that is definitely fit for big scale but requires high demand of both CPU, IO, and memory processing. Also the one engineered system saves lots of time to build the …
We used SQL Server mainly because customers have some legacy applications that can only run on that environment, but SQL Server is good as well. It is easiest to manage users privileges, set up maintenance plans or create a new database from scratch by just using a backup file. …
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 …
UI of the Microsoft SQL Server makes it easy to use and learn. The better technical support and documentation give it an extra edge over other databases. The Microsoft ecosystem provides additional advantages, as we can seamlessly use other Microsoft products, such as Power …
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 …
I think both tools are really powerful and close to each other but since I moved to Europe I realized that most of the companies have been using SQL Server which in my opinion means something. The support from Microsoft I also consider a bit better and you can also find more …
Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle are both extremely powerful and scalable enterprise relational database platforms. Microsoft SQL sets itself apart with its ease of use and licensing and support model. Microsoft is good company to work with and they provide clear and …
The free version is very powerfull and easy to install and use for small companies. Going to Professional and Standard, gives you all the support and the flexibility needed. It is known within the Database Administrator crew, and you can get support very easily over the …
We use both Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server for our entire product line, using the best features of each of them to solve different business requirements and technical challenges. Microsoft SQL Server is simpler to install and use, but lacks some advanced features and has fewer …
I was not too impressed with Oracle. Following the manual prohibited installation. They did provide a phone number and explained the manual was wrong and provided me with the correct information with which I was able to install the product. This was awhile back and I do not …
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 …
Oracle DB and SQL Server are very much alike. They provide the same quality of service and applications. The difference is only the price and support from them. Development codes and almost similar and can be used either way, which is very favorable for users. They can adopt to …
For a single vendor solution, SQL Server is the best choice in my opinion. Most of the other solutions do not offer the full range of products in a single package. Also, for a largely Microsoft shop, there are additional integrations which increase the value proposition. …
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 …
Compared to free versions, SQL Server just blows away the free/open-source software. Things just run faster, and better, and at less overhead. This is truer and truer with the later versions. Microsoft just invests so much into research and development into their product. And …
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.
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.
We migrated from NoSQL to an Oracle database. One of the reasons was robust backup and recovery options available in the Oracle database, which provide zero data loss. A transactional database like Oracle is a better fit for our use case than NoSQL. On a large scale, deployment was evaluated as a cheaper option than the NoSQL engine. This conclusion came even after considering Oracle license is expensive.
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.
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.
There is a lot of sunk cost in a product like Oracle 12c. It is doing a great job, it would not provide us much benefit to switch to another product even if it did the same thing due to the work involved in making such a switch. It would not be cost effective.
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.
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.
Many of the powerful options can be auto-configured but there are still many things to take into account at the moment of installing and configuring an Oracle Database, compared with SQL Server or other databases. At the same time, that extra complexity allows for detailed configuration and guarantees performance, scalability, availability and security.
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.
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.
1. I have very good experience with Oracle Database support team. Oracle support team has pool of talented Oracle Analyst resources in different regions. To name a few regions - EMEA, Asia, USA(EST, MST, PST), Australia. Their support staffs are very supportive, well trained, and customer focused. Whenever I open Oracle Sev1 SR(service request), I always get prompt update on my case timely. 2. Oracle has zoom call and chat session option linked to Oracle SR. Whenever you are in Oracle portal - you can chat with the Oracle Analyst who is working on your case. You can request for Oracle zoom call thru which you can share the your problem server screen in no time. This is very nice as it saves lot of time and energy in case you have to follow up with oracle support for your case. 3.Oracle has excellent knowledge base in which all the customer databases critical problems and their solutions are well documented. It is very easy to follow without consulting to support team at first.
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.
Overall the implementation went very well and after that everything came out as expected - in terms of performance and scalability. People should always install and upgrade a stable version for production with the latest patch set updates, test properly as much as possible, and should have a backup plan if anything unexpected happens
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.
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.
Because of a rich user base and support for any critical issue, this is one of the best options to choose. In case the project has a TCO issue, it can compromise and choose Postgres as the best alternative. SQL server is also good and easy to code and maintain but performance is not as good as the Oracle
[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.
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.