We compared SQL Server and LocalDB based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, SQL Server is praised for its robustness, support, pricing, ROI, and areas for improvement, while LocalDB is valued for its ease of installation, support, affordability, ROI, and enhancement opportunities. SQL Server excels in handling large datasets and security measures, while LocalDB is adept at managing small databases and integration with Visual Studio. Both products offer efficient performance and seamless integration with Microsoft tools, but SQL Server caters more towards businesses with complex data needs, while LocalDB is ideal for smaller-scale projects.
Features: SQL Server's most valuable features include robustness, efficient handling of large data, comprehensive security measures, seamless integration with Microsoft products, and excellent performance. In contrast, LocalDB excels in ease of installation, compatibility with Visual Studio, and efficient performance with small databases. Both products offer seamless integration with Microsoft tools.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for SQL Server is considered straightforward and efficient, with flexible licensing options to accommodate different business needs. On the other hand, LocalDB has no setup costs and offers a permissive license, allowing for easy integration into projects without any restrictions., The ROI from SQL Server is highly satisfactory, with significant improvements in efficiency, data management, and cost savings. On the other hand, LocalDB offers time-saving benefits, improved efficiency, and cost avoidance.
Room for Improvement: SQL Server users emphasize the need for improvements in usability, performance optimization, compatibility, query handling, security features, and efficient handling of large datasets. LocalDB users suggest enhancements in database performance, system stability, user-friendly features, and operating system compatibility.
Deployment and customer support: The feedback on SQL Server indicates that the time required for establishing the tech solution varies, with some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others mention a week for both. In contrast, the feedback on LocalDB emphasizes considering the context of each user's experience, taking into account the separate phases of deployment and setup., Customers have found the customer service for SQL Server commendable and reliable, while LocalDB offers highly satisfactory, efficient, and reliable support. Both have prompt assistance and issue resolution, but SQL Server is praised for its helpfulness and overall assistance, while LocalDB is commended for its friendly and knowledgeable staff.
The summary above is based on 38 interviews we conducted recently with SQL Server and LocalDB users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The guidelines are very easy to follow. Maintenance is very easy and requires very little manpower."
"The initial setup was simple."
"The most valuable feature of LocalDBis the connection between the application and DB."
"The solution is fast."
"If you need to, you can scale the solution very easily."
"We use it for our on-premises solutions, virtual servers and SSAS, SSRS packages. Also, our applications are .NET based, so it made to use it."
"Features like autoscaling, business continuity, and security are beneficial. The tool's compatibility with almost all of the enterprise-class applications is also beneficial for users."
"Its usability is very good. Its performance is satisfactory."
"A valuable feature of the solution is that it is comparatively simpler to manage than Oracle."
"It is an extremely stable solution."
"A big advantage is the ability to store any type of data in SQL Server."
"SQL Server's performance is fine."
"The ALM features can be improved, but the database by itself is reliable."
"The internal connection features of LocalDB could improve."
"The initial setup is complex and requires a skilled person."
"The solution needs to create a management tool. Right now, the solution has tools for creating a local installation, but it's too simplistic. We need something that's a bit more complex so that we can extend the tools with our scripts."
"The upgrades are unstable."
"The price could be better. In the next release, it would be better if the database was more easily extendable."
"I would like to see improvements made to the stability of SQL Server, as well as more analytics requirements."
"Technical support could be better."
"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."
"They could improve the solution by allowing more portability between on-premise and the cloud."
"SQL Server is an expensive solution"
"I would like Microsoft to evolve SQL Server because stateful databases dying are in a way. We would like to find out if it can absorb Hadoop and other similar things. They should make it useful for data mining. Data is evolving forever, and how we store it is also changing constantly. So, SQL Server also needs to change."
LocalDB is ranked 15th in Relational Databases Tools with 5 reviews while SQL Server is ranked 1st in Relational Databases Tools with 260 reviews. LocalDB is rated 9.0, while SQL Server is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of LocalDB writes "Good for the development process, generally stable, and easy to set up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Server writes "Easy to use and provides good speed and data recovery". LocalDB is most compared with MySQL, Oracle Database In-Memory, Oracle Database, Infobright DB and Tibero, whereas SQL Server is most compared with MariaDB, SAP HANA, Oracle Database, IBM Db2 Database and Teradata. See our LocalDB vs. SQL Server 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.
