We performed a comparison between Google Cloud Spanner and SQL Azure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Database as a Service solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The application deployment in the cloud is the best feature of the infrastructure."
"Google Cloud Spanner is stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its scalability. Scalability comes with two options, among which Google Cloud Spanner can scale horizontally, compared to other relational databases that scale vertically."
"We can scale the solution if we need to."
"I am very happy with this solution; right now, I don't think there is anything I would change."
"The administration console in Azure, all in one is the most valuable feature."
"The on-premise SQL Server licenses can be used since it is on Azure, so it's a significant savings for the customers."
"SQL Azure can integrate well with other Microsoft Windows services."
"The data availability and speed are impressive, especially compared to legacy systems. The loading speeds are much faster on Azure SQL."
"The initial setup was straightforward. Deployment takes about one hour."
"Its easy usage is the most valuable."
"What is really helpful about the Azure SQL is that when we have a problem with our sound queries, we can trade information about what indexes we should create on tables. It's really helpful for me and also for developers."
"The cost can be a bit high."
"Google came up with something called Cloud Spanner Emulator, which fails to work like the real product if I want to develop some code and run a database locally on my machine."
"The tool needs to improve horizontal scaling."
"I want to improve the deployment of cameras and surveillance infrastructure."
"I think this product can improve its integrations with business intelligence software. The integrations are always cumbersome due to the approvals, passwords, et cetera."
"What would make SQL Azure better is users having the capability of managing the database solution from the cloud, instead of having to do it from an actual machine because currently, database management via SQL Azure is done on a virtual machine or a PC. The solution should have the data functionality of managing SQL databases inside the cloud."
"The solution could improve by supporting more operating systems."
"Its compatibility with existing applications can be improved. Its compatibility is currently a little bit imbalanced."
"Its price could be better. It is expensive. I am not sure if Microsoft Master Data Services is included in this. If not, Master Data Services can be integrated with Azure SQL. I have only used Master Data Services on-premises."
"The solution can be improved by reducing the cost so more users can be added."
"The solution can be improved by reducing the constraints available."
"There is probably more functionality in our on-prem SQL Server than SQL Azure."
Google Cloud Spanner is ranked 8th in Database as a Service with 4 reviews while SQL Azure is ranked 2nd in Database as a Service with 90 reviews. Google Cloud Spanner is rated 9.0, while SQL Azure is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Google Cloud Spanner writes "A stable and scalable relational database that ensures a return on investment for its users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Azure writes "The SQL connector effectively syncs data to databases". Google Cloud Spanner is most compared with Amazon RDS, MongoDB Atlas, Google Cloud SQL, Oracle Database as a Service and Yugabyte Cloud, whereas SQL Azure is most compared with Amazon RDS, Google Cloud SQL, MongoDB Atlas, Oracle Database as a Service and IBM Db2 on Cloud. See our Google Cloud Spanner vs. SQL Azure report.
See our list of best Database as a Service vendors.
We monitor all Database as a Service 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.
