IBM Cloud Databases Reviews

Well suited for super-low-maintenance NoSQL data storage. Tons of applications just need a 'boring' data layer, meaning that it needs to be easy, fast, and resilient, but we won't be doing anything special with it: Compose is perfect for that. If a highly custom solution was needed (your data storage is the hard part of your application (...but really? _really_? it probably isn't.)), then you might go custom.

And of course if you want a relational database, Compose isn't for you.

IBM Cloud Databases is well suited to production grade applications, websites, low volume data warehousing, and light AI work.

We've chosen IBM Compose when considering DB solution for our social platform, which includes content publishing, rich collaboration and messaging, content curation and sharing, and social networking and connections. We compared it to relational and graph, and within the hierarchical, we compared to other vendors. We feel it's the best option for our needs.

IBM Compose is a good solution if you'd like to use MongoDB. They've been around for a while, generally have good customer support, and are generally reliable.

Great with IBM Watson, but still needs more work with app ID and PostgreSQL as a service.

IBM Cloud Databases are well suited for service simplification.

If you need fast/simple scalable and redundant setup for postgres/rabbitmq, Compose is much simpler than building a similar solution on your own.

This is my current go-to solution where a relational database in the cloud is a requirement. The IBM Cloud Databases PostgreSQL implementation is particular attractive vs. alternatives available from other cloud providers because of relational databases scale "up" well (while generally not scaling "out" well or at all) and IBM is able to offer the ultimate scale-up, the recently available, Hyper Protect DBAAS. I can build today on IBM Cloud Databases for PostgreSQL with the knowledge that in the future, if needed, I can scale up to a solution running on massive Z-Series hardware that is at the same time much more secure (particularly from side-channel attack) than solutions running on Intel hardware.

Well suited for development, but hesitant to use it for products as there is not enough visibility.

They are well suited for simple use cases, but lack in bigger use cases. Easy to provision, and no issues with administration which is abstracted out from the users. They are mostly open source based and lack in features.

I think it's good that I do not need to set up a server to run an elastic search and can still use the benefits of the elastic search function. Similar to Redis and MongoDB. However, I still feel there's a lack of examples and use cases from IBM documentation.

It very much depends on use case. For cases with small DBs, or for cases where ease of management is more important than cost, it's a great option. It's also a great starter for people who have not used Mongo and can make use of the GUI tools.

[Well suited for a] small to medium startup wanting to move fast and safely.

It’s great for medium sized projects. It can get too expensive for large projects or tiny projects.

IBM Compose is well suited for anyone who needs a database and doesn't have any special requirements.

Well suited:

• Quick launch of a product into a production environment.
• Cutting the neeed for a dedicated DBA/devops focused on the DB.

Less appropriate: When you have a very tight budget. Stick to setting up instances manually, without HA, etc.

If you have a small development team that working with one of the support Compose products, it's a great fit. We've been working on the product for 2 yrs now and we're just now getting to the point where the cost/benefit of the managed vs. self-hosted approach is even worth considering.

However, if your tech stack includes a product Compose doesn't offer (like Apache Kafka for instance) it means that you'll either need to find a different provider for those services or manage that portion of the tech stack yourself. It's a minor problem, but the only negative thing I have to say about Compose.

If you need something fast, stable and reliable, and don't want to fiddle around too much with settings and docker images, compose is a great solution. It's easy to set up, and the control panel interface is well organized and full-featured. Billing statements match the ease of use of the control panel and are just as easy to understand.

I am a fan of database as a service, and if Compose supports the database that you want to use and the environment that you want to run in I would certainly give it a shot.

I think it's really good if you have a small team and don't want to waste time configuring, securing and backing up databases. The scenario where it is less appropriate is if you are on a budget.

I would definitely recommend using IBM Compose for secondary storage systems or message queues, as the price-performance ratio is unbeatable. We compared quite a few providers and the price-performance ratio with IBM Compose was by far the best.

Compose has horrible customer service which takes 1 to 3 business days for any type of response. This is the main drawback on whey we choose to go with Amazon since we can get an answer ASAP. I think Compose does great things with their products they just need phone support for these products.

If you want a IaaS Mongo set up, it is certainly a good solution. It isn't the cheapest way of getting Mongo as a datastore, but it does come with high availability and a lot of the hassle taken away from you.

Rapid prototyping. Great for small teams without a budget for a DBA.