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.
"The community is great if you have problem."
"It can handle a lot of files quickly."
"MongoDB's best features are scalability, document management, and data security."
"The solution is user-friendly with a good object retrieval feature."
"We've found the product to be scalable."
"The most valuable feature is the geometric information done with GeoJSON."
"The clustering is very good. It allows us to have high availability."
"MongoDB has a simple data-loading interface."
"The performance aspects of Scylla are good, as always... A good point about Scylla is that it can be used extensively."
"It is lightweight, and it requires less infrastructure."
"I think that MongoDB's search engine should be improved."
"They could provide more documentation and examples for adding pipeline stages."
"I feel that most people don't know a lot about MongoDB, so maybe they could add some more documentation and tutorials."
"The dashboard is an area of concern in the solution where improvements are required."
"MongoDB could be more secure."
"MongoDB can improve large-size video or media frame operations. There are a lot of customers who want to upload media frames and video games but there is some difficulty. In MongoDB, we are looking out for solutions that are for large-size media files that can be saved and navigated efficiently."
"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."
"MongoDB could improve by not having so many updates and different versions."
"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.