We compared SQL Server and LocalDB based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, SQL Server is praised for its robustness, support, pricing, ROI, and areas for improvement, while LocalDB is valued for its ease of installation, support, affordability, ROI, and enhancement opportunities. SQL Server excels in handling large datasets and security measures, while LocalDB is adept at managing small databases and integration with Visual Studio. Both products offer efficient performance and seamless integration with Microsoft tools, but SQL Server caters more towards businesses with complex data needs, while LocalDB is ideal for smaller-scale projects.
Features: SQL Server's most valuable features include robustness, efficient handling of large data, comprehensive security measures, seamless integration with Microsoft products, and excellent performance. In contrast, LocalDB excels in ease of installation, compatibility with Visual Studio, and efficient performance with small databases. Both products offer seamless integration with Microsoft tools.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for SQL Server is considered straightforward and efficient, with flexible licensing options to accommodate different business needs. On the other hand, LocalDB has no setup costs and offers a permissive license, allowing for easy integration into projects without any restrictions., The ROI from SQL Server is highly satisfactory, with significant improvements in efficiency, data management, and cost savings. On the other hand, LocalDB offers time-saving benefits, improved efficiency, and cost avoidance.
Room for Improvement: SQL Server users emphasize the need for improvements in usability, performance optimization, compatibility, query handling, security features, and efficient handling of large datasets. LocalDB users suggest enhancements in database performance, system stability, user-friendly features, and operating system compatibility.
Deployment and customer support: The feedback on SQL Server indicates that the time required for establishing the tech solution varies, with some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others mention a week for both. In contrast, the feedback on LocalDB emphasizes considering the context of each user's experience, taking into account the separate phases of deployment and setup., Customers have found the customer service for SQL Server commendable and reliable, while LocalDB offers highly satisfactory, efficient, and reliable support. Both have prompt assistance and issue resolution, but SQL Server is praised for its helpfulness and overall assistance, while LocalDB is commended for its friendly and knowledgeable staff.
The summary above is based on 38 interviews we conducted recently with SQL Server and LocalDB users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The most valuable feature of LocalDBis the connection between the application and DB."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The guidelines are very easy to follow. Maintenance is very easy and requires very little manpower."
"The solution is fast."
"The initial setup was simple."
"The solution has a user-friendly environment and supporting functionalities. It also has great memory and processing databases."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"A big advantage is the ability to store any type of data in SQL Server."
"It's great that the nodes are synchronized so if you lose one it automatically moves to another."
"The solution has proven to be very stable."
"Its security is good. The GUI of SQL Server is also very good."
"The product's initial setup phase was simple."
"SQL Server is definitely easy to use, and with the volume that we have, it's also stable."
"The initial setup is complex and requires a skilled person."
"The solution needs to create a management tool. Right now, the solution has tools for creating a local installation, but it's too simplistic. We need something that's a bit more complex so that we can extend the tools with our scripts."
"The ALM features can be improved, but the database by itself is reliable."
"The internal connection features of LocalDB could improve."
"Performance could be improved."
"As a software developer, it can be hard to do something in Oracle that is SQL Server specific, and vice-versa, sometimes."
"SQL Server backups could be better."
"In terms of exceptionally large databases, it doesn't scale as well as Oracle."
"Its security can be improved. When you look at the Windows environment, it isn't the most secure environment. It is exposed to so many attacks. They continuously need to improve the security of the platform on which it sits."
"They can build more performance-tuning tools in it. They can also make the stuff a little more user-friendly and provide the ability to schedule jobs. They can perhaps also streamline it a little bit so that it is not so resource-intensive, which would be helpful. SQL Server has a tendency to consume all the memory you allow it to. If you are not careful, you can basically break your server. I would like to see it having a smaller footprint in terms of system resource consumption. They might want to consider re-evaluating their pricing. It is expensive."
"Only one CPU core can be used. Can’t move a database between servers easily. Can’t use triggers."
"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."
LocalDB is ranked 15th in Relational Databases Tools with 5 reviews while SQL Server is ranked 1st in Relational Databases Tools with 260 reviews. LocalDB is rated 9.0, while SQL Server is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of LocalDB writes "Good for the development process, generally stable, and easy to set up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Server writes "Easy to use and provides good speed and data recovery". LocalDB is most compared with MySQL, Oracle Database In-Memory, Oracle Database, Infobright DB and Tibero, whereas SQL Server is most compared with MariaDB, SAP HANA, Oracle Database, IBM Db2 Database and Teradata. See our LocalDB 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.