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 reports are useful for controlling the load of our whole architecture."
"The solution does not hold data in tabular format like SQL does but rather clusters data so that it can link on a large scale."
"It is very fast - faster than an SQL or MySQL Server."
"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."
"MongoDB's approach to handling data in documents rather than traditional tables has been particularly beneficial."
"We decided to work with MongoDB as its interface is easier to understand and more universal."
"The installation is very easy to do and understand."
"The solution is user-friendly with a good object retrieval feature."
"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."
"I have found the solution difficult to operate as an administrator."
"I would like to see the scalability and security improved."
"MongoDB should not be used for reporting, analytics, or number-crunching tasks."
"MongoDB could be more secure."
"I rate the support from MongoDB a four out of five."
"I feel that most people don't know a lot about MongoDB, so maybe they could add some more documentation and tutorials."
"The solution could have more integration."
"Its security features can be better. Sometimes, my higher authority says that we are not going to use MongoDB because it doesn't provide that much security for the RDBMS or relational data that we use for transactions. Instead of MongoDB, we will use Oracle Database because for a transactional service, you have to rely on RDBMS ACID properties. I would love to work on MongoDB by using my mobile phone. When I am working remotely or traveling and have some instances deployed on my server, I should be able to check through my mobile whether all the data is being pulled. GitHub has a similar feature, where it lets you read from the laptop, and you can also pull and push with your mobile phone. I would request MongoDB to provide such a feature. Basically, I want a mobile version for both iOS and Android versions."
"The documentation of Scylla is an area with shortcomings and needs to 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."
MongoDB is ranked 1st in NoSQL Databases with 69 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, Oracle NoSQL, Cassandra 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.