We compared ScyllaDB and MongoDB across several key parameters based on reviews from actual users of both databases. While both are mature solutions, ScyllaDB's technical architecture gives it performance and scalability advantages for demanding workloads. But MongoDB provides a wider range of deployment options more aligned with early-stage growth. Below is a summary of our findings:
Based on user experiences, ScyllaDB's multiprimary design provides very high performance at scale, with solid throughput and low latency suited for data-intensive workloads. MongoDB offers more implementation flexibility but lags in scalability. For large-scale distributed applications, ScyllaDB has advantages in speed, simplicity and efficiency.
"We haven't had any issues with stability."
"We decided to work with MongoDB as its interface is easier to understand and more universal."
"MongoDB is fast and efficient."
"It is easy to use."
"It is really a pretty easy product to use. It's very reliable, it's proven."
"MongoDB's approach to handling data in documents rather than traditional tables has been particularly beneficial."
"One of the most valuable features of MongoDB is it is Its open source."
"MongoDB is cool. There is a difference between relational databases and newer databases like MongoDB. MongoDB is scalable and fast."
"It is lightweight, and it requires less infrastructure."
"The performance aspects of Scylla are good, as always... A good point about Scylla is that it can be used extensively."
"There should be better integration with other databases."
"MongoDB is a very useful and convenient choice, but sometimes for more complex projects, there are certain niche requirements that appear, so using a different tool could be beneficial. It raises the complexity of the architecture, but it could be beneficial to the world, the features, the ease of the features which are being implemented."
"It would be good to have scalability for clusters. For example, if we have three clusters, we should be able to increase to five clusters if required. I am not sure if such a feature is currently there. I hope there is good documentation for this."
"The on-premises version of the solution is still pretty expensive, especially compared to the cloud version."
"From my point of view, they need a totally free IDE to work at high levels."
"The solution could have more integration."
"I don't see a lot of areas that need improvement."
"It could be much more flexible like SequoiaDB. I would like to see more flexibility in the next release, especially when working with Microsoft Windows. A lot of people struggle with MongoDB because of their Windows versions. But Linux is faultless and mostly runs nicely."
"Data export, along with how we can purchase the data periodically, needs to be improved so that the storage is within control. Then, we could optimize it even better."
"The documentation of Scylla is an area with shortcomings and needs to be improved."
MongoDB is ranked 1st in NoSQL Databases with 70 reviews while ScyllaDB is ranked 6th in NoSQL Databases with 2 reviews. MongoDB is rated 8.2, while ScyllaDB is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of MongoDB writes "Lightweight with good flexibility and very fast performance for searching data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScyllaDB writes "A solution that offers good performance and flexibility to its users". MongoDB is most compared with InfluxDB, Couchbase, Cassandra, Oracle NoSQL and Oracle Berkeley DB, whereas ScyllaDB is most compared with Cassandra, Couchbase, Apache HBase, Aerospike Database 7 and InfluxDB. See our MongoDB vs. ScyllaDB report.
See our list of best NoSQL Databases vendors.
We monitor all NoSQL Databases reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
