We compared Amazon DynamoDB and Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB based on our user's reviews across parameters. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Amazon DynamoDB and Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB, while both providing robust cloud database solutions, exhibit distinct features tailored to diverse user needs. DynamoDB, embedded within the AWS ecosystem, excels in managed scalability, security, and high availability but faces criticism over cost predictability and the steep learning curve for new users. Azure Cosmos DB stands out with its multi-model support and global distribution, offering flexibility and performance optimization across geographically dispersed areas. However, it also presents challenges with its complex pricing structure and steep learning curve. Both platforms indicate potential areas for improvement in cost transparency and user-friendly documentation, but they also maintain solid reputations for enhancing data management through their respective unique strengths.
The summary above is based on 53 interviews we conducted recently with Amazon DynamoDB and Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Speed is the most valuable feature. The speed to store and retrieve data from it."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the non-relational database."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. I've never faced any problems."
"We switched to DynamoDB from a relational database that would've had scale problems and would've cost a lot of money to run at scale. DynamoDB allows us to match expense to usage. When not many people are using and it's a quiet day, there is a low cost. On a busy day, there is a higher cost. We get good performance along the way and less maintenance on the database."
"It is a NoSQL product."
"We don't have to administer the tool."
"Amazon DynamoDB is powerful and fast. Its performance is good."
"DynamoDB is a key-value database, and it's valuable if you have simple scan queries and don't need to do point searches."
"Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is easy to use and implement for application programmers."
"The solution is extremely user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"It is a NoSQL database."
"It is a scalable product."
"Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is fast, and its performance is good compared to normal SQL DB."
"The graphical representation of data is the most valuable feature of the solution."
"Cosmos DB is stable and easy to use."
"The solution is highly scalable."
"Currently, there is no option for a scheduled refresh in this solution. We want the data to be populated into DynamoDB on a timely basis. Currently, you have to go to the DynamoDB table and hit the refresh button to populate it with the new data. If you have connected DynamoDB to a BI application for creating visualizations with charts, graphs, or other things, you would want it to get updated as per the schedule so that you have updated visualizations in your BI application."
"The solution could be cheaper."
"The pricing for larger databases is higher."
"Querying data on the solution is quite limited, but this is like any other NoSQL database. It's the most common criticism of the NoSQL database in general."
"The solution's interface is the biggest challenge because if you want to access DynamoDB, you need an AWS account."
"If you have no prior experience with this type of non-relational database, the syntaxes, implementation, or understanding may be difficult."
"The solution's backup and restore could be improved to be able to utilize batch operations."
"Amazon DynamoDB could improve by being more robust, having a better user interface and data management. Additionally, there is some limited functionality compared to other solutions, such as MongoDB."
"The query is a little complex. SQL server should have more options. But the query should be better."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved."
"A couple features that would help me in architectural solutions would be customizable architecture or customizable documentation, which both Microsoft Azure or Microsoft Teams can provide."
"The pricing of the solution is an area with certain shortcomings."
"I don't think Cosmos DB has improved our organization. People are using it, but I'm not sure it's the best solution. For one, it's costly. Also, there are other issues with it. You cannot get all the records simultaneously. You can only get it in chunks of 1,500 maximum."
"I have been a devoted Microsoft fan, but Redis DB's memory caching capabilities are really making progress. Even if Cosmos DB is continuously improving and is quite advanced in the field of internal memory optimization, I would still recommend Redis DB to a customer."
"I would like the speed of transferring data to be improved."
"Sometimes, the solution's access request takes time, which should be improved."
Amazon DynamoDB is ranked 2nd in Managed NoSQL Databases with 29 reviews while Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is ranked 1st in Managed NoSQL Databases with 38 reviews. Amazon DynamoDB is rated 8.4, while Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Amazon DynamoDB writes "Manages our contact center dynamically and allows us to store multiple data attributes in tables". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB writes "Removes bottlenecks related to databases in our application and works quickly because of reference keys". Amazon DynamoDB is most compared with Amazon DocumentDB, Google Cloud Bigtable, Amazon Neptune, Amazon Timestream and Amazon Keyspaces, whereas Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is most compared with Amazon Neptune, Google Cloud Bigtable, Neo4j AuraDB, Amazon DocumentDB and Amazon Timestream. See our Amazon DynamoDB vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB report.
See our list of best Managed NoSQL Databases vendors.
We monitor all Managed 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.
