We performed a comparison between SAP HANA and SQL Server based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Because SAP HANA’s users say its pricing, support, and ease of deployment could all be greatly improved, SQL Server ultimately wins out in this comparison.
"The most valuable feature of SAP HANA is its performance and integration."
"The feature that I like the most is that we can transport the data to our web data application. SAP HANA's performance is really perfect. We're working on big data, and SAP HANA is really working on high performance. We are happy working with it."
"Some functions have good performance."
"The in-memory database is excellent."
"The most valuable features I have found are speed, dashboard, and reporting."
"SAP HANA's interface is pretty user-friendly."
"Eases management of databases."
"The user interface is very good. You can do any kind of reporting analytics from the platform."
"In Poland, SQL Server is the most popular database engine, and overall, our customers like it."
"The solution is configurable."
"The most valuable feature of SQL Server is that it is easy to set up."
"The scalability is very good."
"It can go easily on a virtual machine and be accommodated by a virtual machine easily. That is a plus, as not all databases can handle that."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is that it's integrated with the Visual Studio and also with Microsoft SQL Server Management Studio. It's a tool they have and it's quite easy to use and understand. It's the interface for programming for SQL Services."
"There was an online system in which we had about 2500 requests to the DB per second. Every request had a completion window of one second to process and retrieve data. After switching to SQL Server, and AlwaysOn, and Snapshot, and tinkering, and configuring and tinkering, the handling capacity we measured increased to about 5000 requests per second, while the time decreased to 0.5 seconds per request."
"Excel integration is one of its most valuable features."
"The initial setup was very, very complex, tedious, and costly and required someone with great expertise to complete it."
"The solution is very expensive for us."
"While new users to this solution have the benefit of the new design, existing ERP users may experience issues with migrating legacy data. We would like to see development of ready-made tools that allow for easy mapping when upgrading."
"It's a complex initial setup."
"In terms of improvement, the speed is not as good as we thought it would be. That is why we are trying different solutions that will be built with different technologies."
"I give the scalability of SAP HANA a six out of ten."
"The relationship with a partner that sells SAP could be better. We depend much more on our own development, and the partner is for selling us the solutions, so we need them to be able to supply help and answers. The partner isn't very helpful, and we have to rely on our own knowledge and research."
"There's an issue in the partition. When you record more than two million records, partitioning does not work well. In Oracle it's easy. SAP must resolve this issue in order to be more competitive with Oracle."
"I would like to see SQL Server add the ability to write to multiple sites or support replication between multiple sites at the transaction level."
"We would like to have a common storage option in the SQL Server. This option is available in Oracle Database. It would be great if Microsoft could create something like a columnstore that has not only indexing but also tables for common storage."
"The solution's stability can be improved."
"It is very costly, and that's the reason people are moving away from SQL Server."
"They do not offer the SQL Server Management tool via the installation. It is a separate tool I use when I'm trying to configure the mirroring with SQL Server Mirroring. This is not supported and I'm getting some errors on the database mirroring."
"There are a lot of improvements in the cloud space about which we open a case with Microsoft every now and then. These improvements are not in terms of features or functionality. They are more related to their own compatibility or connectivity on which they keep on working to improve the product."
"They could improve the solution by allowing more portability between on-premise and the cloud."
"Scalability is an area that needs improvement, and the deployment is difficult, which why I'm looking for an appliance to deploy it in a much more scalable way."
SAP HANA is ranked 3rd in Relational Databases Tools with 81 reviews while SQL Server is ranked 1st in Relational Databases Tools with 260 reviews. SAP HANA is rated 8.4, while SQL Server is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of SAP HANA writes "Excellent compatibility between modules and the control". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Server writes "Easy to use and provides good speed and data recovery". SAP HANA is most compared with Oracle Database, MySQL, IBM Db2 Database, Apache Spark and SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise, whereas SQL Server is most compared with MariaDB, Oracle Database, LocalDB, IBM Db2 Database and Teradata. See our SAP HANA vs. SQL Server report.
See our list of best Relational Databases Tools vendors.
We monitor all Relational Databases Tools 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.