We compared ScyllaDB and MongoDB across several key parameters based on reviews from actual users of both databases. While both are mature solutions, ScyllaDB's technical architecture gives it performance and scalability advantages for demanding workloads. But MongoDB provides a wider range of deployment options more aligned with early-stage growth. Below is a summary of our findings:
Based on user experiences, ScyllaDB's multiprimary design provides very high performance at scale, with solid throughput and low latency suited for data-intensive workloads. MongoDB offers more implementation flexibility but lags in scalability. For large-scale distributed applications, ScyllaDB has advantages in speed, simplicity and efficiency.
"The most valuable features of MongoDB are the variety of translations available and the ability to deploy it on the cloud is useful. The cloud users can access the data, work on the data, and if they want to import or manipulate some data they can."
"I like that MongoDB has a free version. You can also buy the enterprise edition, which is cheaper than Oracle."
"I found that MongoDB is most valuable for storing school-related queries. It's also user-friendly, and I found no difficulty accessing it. Setting it up is easy too."
"I value the API integrations."
"like its performance and the stability. It's very stable and, performance-wise, it's really great."
"The most valuable feature of MongoDB is the NoSQL database. In a SQL database, we need to join data together with a unique ID amongst other things, but in MongoDB, it's not required. We can directly receive all the information. The performance is very good. Additionally, they have frequent updates."
"The solution has good flexibility and very fast performance for searching data."
"One of the biggest benefits is the speed and flexibility of the documents, especially when it comes to modifications."
"It is lightweight, and it requires less infrastructure."
"The performance aspects of Scylla are good, as always... A good point about Scylla is that it can be used extensively."
"You need integration with other tools to run the query in MongoDB."
"I'd like to see an ID generator. It's very technical but I don't think it has one, so we have to go to great lengths to work around that."
"The product's data consistency could be more efficient than traditional SQLs."
"Data encryption is possible using third-party tools but they should have their own encryption capability built-in to this solution."
"It could be much more flexible like SequoiaDB. I would like to see more flexibility in the next release, especially when working with Microsoft Windows. A lot of people struggle with MongoDB because of their Windows versions. But Linux is faultless and mostly runs nicely."
"Lacks sufficient scalability and elasticity."
"MongoDB could be more secure."
"The stability could be improved."
"Data export, along with how we can purchase the data periodically, needs to be improved so that the storage is within control. Then, we could optimize it even better."
"The documentation of Scylla is an area with shortcomings and needs to be improved."
MongoDB is ranked 1st in NoSQL Databases with 70 reviews while ScyllaDB is ranked 6th in NoSQL Databases with 2 reviews. MongoDB is rated 8.2, while ScyllaDB is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of MongoDB writes "Lightweight with good flexibility and very fast performance for searching data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScyllaDB writes "A solution that offers good performance and flexibility to its users". MongoDB is most compared with InfluxDB, Couchbase, Cassandra, Oracle NoSQL and Oracle Berkeley DB, whereas ScyllaDB is most compared with Cassandra, Couchbase, Apache HBase, InfluxDB and Aerospike Database 7. See our MongoDB vs. ScyllaDB report.
See our list of best NoSQL Databases vendors.
We monitor all 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.
