What users are saying about
10 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
23 Ratings
10 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.9 out of 100

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
23 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 7.5 out of 100

Likelihood to Recommend

RavenDB

It worked quite well as a centralized location for data from different existing sources with fast data loading into it with a generous free tier to get a good understanding of how to use it. Although it was kind of clunky getting it to work on Linux due to the certificates required.The clients for languages like python and NodeJS exist but are a little under documented — although the C# one was rather good.
Holger Harzer | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

SingleStore [formerly (MemSQL)] is very well suited for places- where the components are processing very large amounts of data and requires very low latency.- Columnstore compression of data reduces the time to respond. Compression resulted in quick responses which are not achieved using the other DB tools.- The concept of Rowstore and implementation on frequently used tables results in support of high OLTP.Not suited/less appropriate- The In-memory(Rowstore) and col-store does not share the same language compatibility. When required the transition form other table type more efforts are required.- SingleStore DB (formerly MemSQL) connection between AWS cloud failed when partitioning is higher for data processing.- Administration is sometime bit confusing when providing layered access to different teams.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Feature Rating Comparison

NoSQL Databases

RavenDB
9.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Performance
RavenDB
9.1
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Availability
RavenDB
9.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Concurrency
RavenDB
8.8
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Security
RavenDB
9.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Scalability
RavenDB
8.9
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Data model flexibility
RavenDB
9.1
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
Deployment model flexibility
RavenDB
8.8
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

Pros

RavenDB

  • Cool clustering with modest features
  • Fabulous auto indexing
  • Great studio and dashboard
  • Detailed documentation
  • Attachments on the document
  • Outstanding revisions
  • Easy ETL
  • Low prices on the clouds
  • Multi model support
  • Advance search
  • Informative webinars
Sina Zaimaran | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

  • The fastest speed for querying compared with traditional relational database
  • Support JSON and full text search which can be used by API’s
  • Nearly zero admin tasks once it’s running
  • You can use it’s data streaming pipeline with Kafka
Jacob Ortega | TrustRadius Reviewer

Cons

RavenDB

  • In previous versions the documentation was terrible - however, since v4.0 the documentation is excellent.
  • Any minor complaints are generally resolved by the team the same day. I suggested at one time some minor tweaks to Studio (showing the number of items in an array) and they were implemented almost immediately.
  • Nothing really to complain about.
Jeremy Holt | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

  • Does not provide adequate support for data discovery apps, i.e. Power BI.
  • It would be great to have a native load balancing component for dealing with aggregator failure. Otherwise having a Child Aggregator becomes optional since not all the customers can afford an external balancing solution and does not feel confortable with switching between aggregators manually.
  • They used to have certifications and training in development and administration. That is very important to have, since other competitors does provide access to those sort of things and although they have free tutorials/videos, that doesn't provide an in-depth understanding.
Diego Montúfar | TrustRadius Reviewer

Likelihood to Renew

RavenDB

RavenDB 9.5
Based on 5 answers
We've had an excellent experience using RavenDB. Internally we are testing the newer features in 5.0 such as time series, which will effect the con specified previously dependent on the real world performance. We foresee that BattleCrate will continue to use RavenDB as we grow.
Alan Doherty | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 5.0
Based on 1 answer
I still want to see the performance about using latest version of spark and memsql. About renewal, if there is a new and better version of spark-memsql connector, then maybe.
Tianwen Chu | TrustRadius Reviewer

Usability

RavenDB

RavenDB 8.4
Based on 5 answers
RavenDb does all the heavy lifting for you in 99% of cases. The API is easy to work with and lets you write very readable code. There is a small learning curve at the start but this is true for any tech. Raven's curve is easy to get over.
Chris Llewellyn | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 7.8
Based on 5 answers
[Until it is] supported on AWS ECS containers, I will reserve a higher rating for SingleStore. Right now it works well on EC2 and serves our current purpose, [but] would look forward to seeing SingleStore respond to our urge of feature in a shorter time period with high quality and security.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Support Rating

RavenDB

RavenDB 9.0
Based on 6 answers
Very good support that answered fast, nice and reliably. The problems were always resolved quickly and competently, even if the user was the problem. If any unusual issues arose, the support was proactive in contacting me to resolve problems or roadblocks I might have had.
Holger Harzer | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) 7.7
Based on 6 answers
Very responsive to trouble tickets - Often, I think, the SingleStore's monitoring systems have already alerted the engineers by the time I get around to writing a ticket (about 10 - 20 mins after we see a problem). I feel like things are escalated nicely and SingleStore takes resolving trouble tickets seriously. Also SingleStore follows up after incidents to with a post mortem and actionable takaways to improve the product. Very satisfied here.
John Barry | TrustRadius Reviewer

Implementation Rating

RavenDB

RavenDB 7.3
Based on 1 answer
RavenFS changed along the way and made us change the codes.
Sina Zaimaran | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

RavenDB

When I first started using RavenDB, I did evaluate Mongo DB but found it to be lacking. The primary issue was that Mongo DB did not support atomic consistency for the persistence of multiple documents at the same time, although I think this may not be an issue with subsequent releases of Mongo DB. If for some reason I were forced to select an alternative Document Database, I would probably evaluate PostgreSQL or CosmosDB.
Adam Nemitoff | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

We selected SingleStore instead of a number of Hadoop based solutions, RedShift and Imply.
SingleStore hits a sweet spot. It is easy to develop against by being Mysql compatible. It is easy to get started with by being easy to install and test with datasets. It is consistently fast and any performance problems are easy to reason about.
Darrin Thompson | TrustRadius Reviewer

Return on Investment

RavenDB

  • Not having to debug perf issues caused by ORM.
  • Not having to deal with SQL as you denormalize your app data model.
Wallace Turner | TrustRadius Reviewer

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

  • License cost is lower than many of its competitors.
  • Requires very little administration. We are getting by without even hiring an admin.
  • Integrating the pipelines and the DB engine simplifies the solution architecture, which means less infrastructure is needed, less license cost, and shorter development cycle.
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer

Screenshots

Pricing Details

RavenDB

General

Free Trial
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
Entry-level set up fee?
No

RavenDB Editions & Modules

Additional Pricing Details

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

General

Free Trial
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
Entry-level set up fee?
Optional

SingleStore (formerly MemSQL) Editions & Modules

Edition
OnDemand0.691
  1. per hour
Additional Pricing Details

Rating Summary

Likelihood to Recommend

RavenDB
8.9
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
7.9

Likelihood to Renew

RavenDB
9.5
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
5.0

Usability

RavenDB
8.4
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
7.8

Support Rating

RavenDB
9.0
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)
7.7

Implementation Rating

RavenDB
7.3
SingleStore (formerly MemSQL)

Add comparison