We performed a comparison between SQL Server and Teradata based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Because Teradata is more expensive, has harder initial setup, harder scalability, and fewer features, SQL Server ultimately wins out in this comparison.
"One of the best features of SQL Server is the efficient retrieval of information."
"SQL Server is quite stable. And now we are using the Lattice 2017 version."
"The solution has a reliable database."
"The solution is easy to use and provides similar features to other competitors."
"Stability and usability, which is quite simple, are two of the solution's most valuable features."
"We've found it to basically be pretty problem-free."
"I have found SQL Server easy to use."
"The solution has the capability to scale."
"It has reduced a lot of reworking on maintaining indexes, partitions, etc."
"The functionality of the solution is excellent."
"Teradata's most valuable feature is that it's easy to use."
"Their extensive experience in data warehousing, the platform's performance, and their strong reputation in the market are the most valuable."
"Teradata features high productivity and reliability because it has several redundancy options, so the system is always up and running."
"Improved performance of ETL procedures, reporting."
"There are several features of Teradata that I like. One of the most basic is the indexes. I also like that it provides lower TCO. It also has the optimizer feature which is a good feature and isn't found in other legacy systems. Parallelism is also another feature I like in Teradata because when you are running or hosting on multiple systems, you have this shared-nothing architecture that helps. Loading and unloading in Teradata are also really helpful compared to other systems."
"It handles large amounts of information with a linear performance increase, in relation to a HW investment."
"There are certain shortcomings in the scalability of the product, making it an area where improvements are required."
"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."
"The solution could be better when it comes to security."
"There is room for improvement in performance when managing a large quality of data and a high number of active users."
"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."
"Query optimitzer could be simplified."
"There are a few use cases where we do need the Active-Active options instead of Active-Passive, yet those kinds of options are not available for Microsoft."
"I would like to see the integration with other platforms improved in the future."
"Teradata could improve by being less complicated. There are some aspects that are not available on the Unix server and a Unix system is required to access some data, such as in case of an emergency."
"Sometimes the large injestion takes days to load data, and some of our stored procedures take two to three days."
"The following could be better: licensing, architecture openness, integration with other tools."
"The SQL Assistant is very basic. This tool can be improved for usability."
"Teradata's UI could be more user-friendly."
"Teradata needs to expand the kind of training that's available to customers. Teradata only offers training directly and doesn't delegate to any third-party companies. As a result, it's harder to find people trained on Teradata in our market relative to Oracle."
"I'm not sure about the unstructured data management capabilities. It could be improved."
"The solution could improve by having a cloud version or a cloud component. We have to use other solutions, such as Amazon AWS, Microsoft Azure, or Snowflake for the cloud."
SQL Server is ranked 1st in Relational Databases Tools with 260 reviews while Teradata is ranked 7th in Relational Databases Tools with 54 reviews. SQL Server is rated 8.4, while Teradata is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of SQL Server writes "Easy to use and provides good speed and data recovery". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Teradata writes "Offers seamless integration capabilities and performance optimization features, including extensive indexing and advanced tuning capabilities". SQL Server is most compared with MariaDB, SAP HANA, Oracle Database, LocalDB and Amazon Aurora, whereas Teradata is most compared with Snowflake, Oracle Exadata, MySQL, BigQuery and Amazon Redshift. See our SQL Server vs. Teradata 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.