We performed a comparison between MYSQL and SQL Server based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: SQL Server comes out ahead in this comparison because it is less demanding on resources and can more easily be integrated with other solutions. Some users feel that MySQL requires more maintenance and can be a bit buggy and less stable than SQL Server.
"MySQL is easy and convenient for me. I don't need to rely on anyone. I can write the code and extract the information. It is fast if you know how to use it. The solution is not expensive, and most of the developers know how to use it. It is easy to create tables. The solution is stable and has good performance. The connection with AWS gives regular updates, which is manual otherwise and a nightmare."
"The most valuable features are that it's free and the documentation is good."
"The solution is free to use, which is its most valuable aspect."
"This is a lightweight product that is not demanding on the resources, which is what I think gives it the edge."
"The feature I found most valuable is activity performance."
"MySQL is easy to use, has fast performance, and it is comfortable for end-user to use. The schema level and structure we are using are very simple and easy to understand. Additionally, packaging tool development is straightforward and the data is presented in a way that is very simple to understand."
"It is easy to use. It is simple to implement, which makes it suitable for our projects because we have deadlines. MySQL is also open-source, which is another plus point."
"The fact that it is free is what appeals to me the most."
"It is quite reliable in cluster configurations and has helped me to reduce downtime and improve SLAs."
"The most valuable feature is replication because we had several replicas of the SQL Server database in different geographical locations."
"I have seen that this is a very stable product."
"The backups are excellent."
"The solution is easy to use and provides similar features to other competitors."
"One of the most valuable features of SQL Server is that it's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is that it is easy to use and you don't have to do a lot of configuration."
"I use the menu on the management view credit section to get information from the database."
"The interface could be improved."
"Could use some additional JSON query support in the solution."
"There are some issues with compatibility with Java environments that need to be improved. When Oracle bought this solution there were some driver changes that caused some issues with operations."
"It should have some code analytical functions. It can also have a monitoring tool."
"I feel that some tools which make it easier to create queries or make it easier for other functions would be really interesting to see."
"They should come up with a better solution than the NDB cluster for better scaling. If they could come up with a better solution for write scaling, apart from the NDB cluster, which is supported by all open source communities, that would be great. Although the NDB cluster, I believe, is an open-source tool, it's not widely supported as a solution."
"Security is a concern. MySQL could have better security features."
"Since we upgraded from 8.0.12 to 8.0.22, it has had some slowness-related issues. Some of the queries that were fast previously are quite slow now. I did some research, and I found many people complaining about it."
"When we are talking about event space architecture, scalability generally comes into play. For example, I might have a hundred thousand transactions a second, and then all of a sudden, I build something that everybody in the world wants. The next thing I know is that I have a million transactions a second. So, to be able to process the throughput, I'd have to scale up, and then when the holidays are over, I'm again down to a hundred thousand transactions, and I want to scale back down. SQL Server is not going to do that. In this way, it is not very scalable. One of the reasons why they want us to use Kafka is so that if we need to, we can do that, but our base program is on SQL Server. So, this is where we would use a Kafka event stack so that if I need more servers, I can just write a command, and I can have more consumers, more brokers, and more producers, and when the holiday season is over, it scales right back down again. SQL Server is not going to do that."
"There is room for improvement in terms of pricing for SQL Server."
"The pricing could be more affordable."
"The solution could improve by having better integration."
"Although I am satisfied with the solution, some clients have asked us to resolve technical issues, such as those involving silver solution and replication."
"I would like the SQL Server to be able to provide cloud support. We use the solution with a Korean provider supporting only MySQL rather than Microsoft SQL Server, which would be preferable and cheaper. This would prevent us from having to pay for troubleshooting and hosting the server."
"Price could be cheaper, and access to reporting tools should be better."
"SQL Server could be improved with cheaper licensing because it's very expensive."
MySQL is ranked 4th in Relational Databases Tools with 140 reviews while SQL Server is ranked 1st in Relational Databases Tools with 245 reviews. MySQL is rated 8.2, while SQL Server is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of MySQL writes "Good beginner base but it should have better support for backups". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Server writes "A stable, scalable, and easy-to-deploy solution that pretty much covers everything". MySQL is most compared with Firebird SQL, PostgreSQL, MariaDB, Teradata and Oracle Database, whereas SQL Server is most compared with MariaDB, SAP HANA, Oracle Database, IBM Db2 Database and Vertica. See our MySQL 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.