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.
"MongoDB is fast and efficient."
"I find the integration with other tools very easy."
"In our case, it is most important to have redundancy."
"I found that MongoDB is most valuable for storing school-related queries. It's also user-friendly, and I found no difficulty accessing it. Setting it up is easy too."
"MongoDB is simpler to learn and implement than traditional SQL solutions like MySQL."
"It facilitates the generation of heatmaps for graphical data analysis."
"MongoDB is scalable and stable. The initial setup is very easy, and deployment and maintenance can be done by one person."
"The solution does not hold data in tabular format like SQL does but rather clusters data so that it can link on a large scale."
"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."
"We'd like technical support to respond faster to queries."
"The MongoDB documentation can be a little complicated sometimes."
"We'd like information about client onboarding experience and success stories. It would help to have something to show to internal stakeholders."
"They could improve the UI and the analytics part."
"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."
"Lacks sufficient scalability and elasticity."
"From my point of view, they need a totally free IDE to work at high levels."
"The product's data consistency could be more efficient than traditional SQLs."
"The documentation of Scylla is an area with shortcomings and needs to be improved."
"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."
MongoDB is ranked 1st in NoSQL Databases with 69 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, InfluxDB and Aerospike Database 7. 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.