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 gives us a very user-friendly workspace in which to query the database."
"The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I would have worked with our IT team in terms of the initial setup."
"I use MySQL for employee service in an OLTP database."
"The most valuable feature of MySQL is auto-scaling."
"The most valuable feature of MySQL is its reliability and performance."
"I like the simplistic view of MySQL to build custom queries and things like that as compared to SQL Server, which seems more cluttered. SQL Server has a query analyzer. MySQL pretty much does the same, and performance-wise, it has less overhead for connecting to our ERP system. It seems more responsive and cleaner. With MySQL, you get what you need without any overbloating, for which Microsoft is known. That's why they have so many constant security patches for everything because there is so much stuff, which degrades performance."
"The relations in the database, the dynamic workflow, and the ability to connect with all columns. It's useful for e-commerce."
"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."
"Enables us to convert to bigger DBs and more easily move or upgrade between branches."
"SQL Server's Management Studio is very user friendly. I like their database and the additional features it offers. It's also easy to integrate SQL Server with things like CLR, PowerShell, and command shell"
"I use it to fine tune my procedures and functions."
"The solution is very common. It's easy to use."
"Comparing with other database management systems that I tried in other companies, SQL Server is quite easy to install, configure, and maintain."
"The performance of the SQL Server is very good."
"We are using the net for our environment. We're using the ADF Azure data factory for our analysis services, and it is pretty good."
"The solution is very easy to use. It's intuitive and easy to navigate. Overall, it's a straightforward product."
"The workbench could be improved. In particular, error messages can be improved, which are horrific and completely unhelpful. I'd like to see improved parsing of errors. When you write SQL and it crashes, it usually is something completely irrelevant and not helpful. I've started to use GPT 3.5 for finding out how to do things. I got to do something a bit different, and that I found to be very useful. If there was some way to tie it into one of the new AI tools, that would probably be a good idea."
"The solution could improve the monitoring. At the present time, you need to use third-party monitoring solutions."
"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."
"Improvements are required in character set support, scalability, and big data sets."
"Its performance should be better. When we use big data, it is slow in performance. We should be able to use mirroring for improved performance."
"The only service which could be improved is its usability. The entire user experience needs to be revamped to meet the 2018 design standards."
"I would like to see more integrations of the solution with other platforms and improve the support on different data types."
"Oracle should start putting in some of the enterprise features in the standard feature. There are some key features that should be part of the standard."
"The number of concurrent users is too limited and other databases are better than SQL in this regard."
"The solution is expensive. The licensing costs are high."
"The solution is rather expensive."
"I would say that people should know how to get a SQL setup in place since it might be an area where they lack when it comes to the solution."
"It could be more stable."
"It needs to be improved to handle big data for large volumes of transactions for big industries. As compared to Oracle Database, SQL Server is not suitable for big data or large organizations where the database size could be more than 100 GB or more. In our country, for a large database and a large volume of transactions, we normally use Oracle Database. Most of the large banks are shifting from SQL Server to Oracle Database because of its slowness."
"SQL Server could be more robust than one of its competitors."
"Other than Synapse and the other version of SQL Server, they face some problems while processing the data."
MySQL is ranked 4th in Relational Databases Tools with 142 reviews while SQL Server is ranked 1st in Relational Databases Tools with 259 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 "Easy to use and provides good speed and data recovery". 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, LocalDB 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.
