We performed a comparison between Cassandra and Couchbase based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NoSQL Databases solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cassandra has some features that are more useful for specific use cases where you have time series where you have huge amounts of writes. That should be quick, but not specifically the reads. We needed to have quicker reads and writes and this is why we are using Cassandra right now."
"The use of Cassandra in real-time data analytics has been pivotal for our e-commerce platform. As our platform operates 24/7, providing services to sellers and customers alike, the need for real-time updates is paramount."
"The most valuable feature of Cassandra is its fast retrieval. Additionally, the solution can handle large amounts of data. It is the quickest application we use."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its speed and distributed nature."
"The solution's database capabilities are very good."
"Some of the valued features of this solution are it has good performance and failover."
"The most valuable features of Cassandra are the NoSQL database, high performance, and zero-copy streaming."
"Our primary use case for the solution is testing."
"The whole stack is valuable, but the portion of the stack that we're finding really handy is the analytics engine because that allows us to take and pre-build views."
"Sync Gateway is a great feature that supports the mobile application."
"The most valuable feature of Couchbase is document indexing. It is better than MongoDB. Additionally, the solution is easy to use."
"It is pretty stable."
"The principal advantage of Couchbase is that we can have multiple database paradigms in the same product, without deploying multiple databases. We also like that it has lower latency, when compared to its competitor: Cassandra."
"The most valuable features are the ease of application and the merging of data."
"It can scale horizontally, and we are looking to expand our capacity."
"I have found the views to be very valuable."
"Doesn't support a solution that can give aggregation."
"The solution doesn't have joins between tables so you need other tools for that."
"There could be more integration, and it could be more user-friendly."
"Cassandra can improve by adding more built-in tools. For example, if you want to do some maintenance activities in the cluster, we have to depend on third-party tools. Having these tools build-in would be e benefit."
"There were challenges with the query language and the development interface. The query language, in particular, could be improved for better optimization. These challenges were encountered while using the Java SDK."
"The solution is not easy to use because it is a big database and you have to learn the interface. This is the case though in most of these solutions."
"Interface is not user friendly."
"The initial setup of Cassandra can be difficult in the configuration. There might be a need to have assistance. The implementation process can six months for connecting to certain databases."
"I have tried multiple libraries in a demo they provide and it works fine, but when it merges with libraries, it creates a problem."
"The failover and failback could be a bit easier. When I looked at it last time, it had to be manually done. It also took over an hour for us to rebalance all the nodes."
"Needs some capacity planning to deal with too much memory, CPUs and displays."
"We would like to have a better management of Kubernetes with the free, open source version of Couchbase. We don't have any major complaints other than that."
"It's easy to deploy. Where the challenge comes in is when you start putting data in, doing the indexes, and doing the integration with systems. Integration is one of their weakest points. Natively, there should be a wide range of integration options to be able to get data in."
"One thing that could improved upon is the level of concurrency. The documentation for this solution could also be improved."
"The performance could be quicker and better, especially in the querying process."
"The scripting language for this solution could be improved. A big selling point is that they're like SQL server but there is still quite a lot of missing functionality."
Cassandra is ranked 4th in NoSQL Databases with 19 reviews while Couchbase is ranked 2nd in NoSQL Databases with 10 reviews. Cassandra is rated 8.0, while Couchbase is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Cassandra writes "Well-equipped to handle a massive influx of data and billions of requests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Couchbase writes "No SQL cloud based solution used to manage unstructured data and push out large volumes of metrics at a low latency". Cassandra is most compared with InfluxDB, MongoDB, ScyllaDB, Oracle NoSQL and DataStax, whereas Couchbase is most compared with MongoDB, ScyllaDB, CouchDB, Aerospike Database 7 and InfluxDB. See our Cassandra vs. Couchbase 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.
