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.
"Easier to maintain the data with its document-based storage."
"The most valuable features of MongoDB are we have a lot of documentation and SQL-based applications that run on it."
"MongoDB is scalable and stable. The initial setup is very easy, and deployment and maintenance can be done by one person."
"I like the document storage feature. It's pretty simple."
"The integration capabilities of MongoDB are fine for the solutions that we use in our company."
"It is easy to set up."
"The solution has good flexibility and very fast performance for searching data."
"MongoDB is simpler to learn and implement than traditional SQL solutions like MySQL."
"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."
"It isn't easy to recognize entities with MongoDB."
"The MongoDB documentation can be a little complicated sometimes."
"MongoDB should better support small and medium companies. There are a lot of clients out there that are interested, however, they need something lighter and less complex and something not so expensive upfront."
"There are some problems with bugs appearing in sharding when the data is too high."
"People coming from RDBMS should have the flexibility to write queries in SQL that can be converted into JSON queries."
"The dashboard is an area of concern in the solution where improvements are required."
"I think it would be good to have more search options such as an index resource. This will provide more options and resources to do advance searches."
"It is important to note that MongoDB has limitations since it can only be used for specific use cases. For example, for master data, I would want to pick keys using an RDBMS, but for attachments, I would choose MongoDB."
"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.