We performed a comparison between CockroachDB and Oracle Database based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Relational Databases Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The best feature of CockroachDB is the ability to keep the nodes in different locations."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its resiliency features and the geo-partitioning capabilities."
"The tool's most valuable feature is node syncing, which takes only 0.54 milliseconds."
"The initial setup and deployment are simple."
"CockroachDB is highly reliable."
"I use CockroachDB to test big data samples and to create the best structure for databases. We have four users and required 10 people for deployment and maintenance."
"The product has valuable security features."
"The subset of SQL that my client is using is completely supported."
"The solution has very robust integrity due to how it is designed and implemented."
"It is user-friendly. It didn't take me much time to learn it."
"I like that it's stable. What's good is that Oracle manages the infrastructure. We have got better because they update the server by default or whenever it's needed. They try to fix it server by server because of their own support plans."
"The solution is stable."
"It's fast compared to other databases."
"It is a stable product. In terms of recovery, if there is a failure or some kind of fault, we can recover the data. We do not lose it."
"There is a lot of information available on the internet, so problems can easily be fixed."
"What is most valuable with the Oracle Database is the performance."
"The initial setup and pricing could be improved."
"The closer they can make CockroachDB to being completely compatible with Postgres, the better. It's almost compatible, but not completely. If it was, it would be nice to just be able to use Postgres libraries without any fiddling."
"The product must improve its disaster recovery features."
"The platform could be more extensible."
"I find the serverless offer a bit confusing."
"CockroachDB needs to improve store processes."
"Cockroach does not support all types of protocols. I need to improve it myself to support a CouchDB on my network."
"We are looking for more features to support distributed high availability and geo-partitioning."
"Better integration with other databases would be an improvement."
"In my opinion, the pricing of all the additional tools that Oracle provides is very complicated. The pricing model is very unfriendly for the user, and for the web vendors."
"The setup process can be a bit complex."
"It could be slightly more intuitive, but other than that, we really like it as a solution."
"It needs to be more stable, as recently we have experienced some issues."
"An area for improvement would be query performance - in some cases, it's really, really hard to make it run faster."
"The solution can be quite expensive."
"A lot of features have bugs or choose the wrong way to process data."
CockroachDB is ranked 9th in Relational Databases Tools with 10 reviews while Oracle Database is ranked 2nd in Relational Databases Tools with 278 reviews. CockroachDB is rated 8.0, while Oracle Database is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of CockroachDB writes "Open source with extensive documentation and a University for training". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Database writes "Supports a large volume of transactions compared to other databases". CockroachDB is most compared with MySQL, Citus Data, Amazon Aurora, SQL Server and MariaDB, whereas Oracle Database is most compared with SAP HANA, SQL Server, MariaDB, IBM Db2 Database and IBM Informix. See our CockroachDB vs. Oracle Database 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.