Compared to other databases, SQL Server SE rates ten out of ten in price to performance and features. If you wanted to compare SQL Server SE to YellowBrick for features SE is 5 or 6 and YellowBrick is a 10. 

That said, Yellowbrick will cost a million dollars compared to $50,000 for SQL Server. It's not a fair comparison.

So nowadays we don't spend much time looking at other databases. If a customer wants PostgreSQL we will do that. If they want Oracle we will do that. But we prefer to work on SQL Server. It's also actually easier to work on.

We have a team that has evaluated other solutions before we chose SQL Server, such as Oracle.

From my perspective, the two vendors for this are Microsoft and Amazon (AWS).

They are working on making it better with every release, compared to Oracle Db2 and IBM.

MySQL as a database is sufficient for the scale of the projects that I've been talking about for ht purposes we have currently. PostgreSQL, which I do not personally know very well, is something else we looked at. It's a matter of the scale, generally. When I'm teaching, I'm probably the only member of faculty teaching actual database design in our school of engineering. We only would work on something that I call prototyping. Nothing that would reach for the responsibility of becoming our actual production database. 

While there are other options available such as Oracle Database, Firebird, and MySQL, we specifically chose SQL Server to fulfill our needs for Microsoft services.

We opted for SQL Server as our scalable server solution to meet the requirements of our Microsoft services.

For personal websites and personal software that isn't used by more than 100 people, I will always go for MySQL for two reasons: MySQL is free and the enterprise is very low in cost.

Oracle Enterprise is another option, but the cost is high when you consider that MySQL is free.

If you're using SQL Server along with SSIS and SSRS tools, it works pretty smoothly and all. When working with Oracle SQL, PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc, there are a few problems with the connection.

Overall, SQL Server is good, but sometimes, optimization becomes a little bit tricky when you're using SQL Servers in place of Oracle. For example, while I was implementing two queries one time, the SQL Server gave me the wrong results. This wasn't because of their internal modules. So there may have been some missing data, but SQL Server failed to identify those issues. SQL Server needs to improve there.

For example, say there is a line with a value of 136 or 137. The second value is a space, and the third value is null. And the last one is space. So a space means this is also null. So you are comparing these four values, and if you don't have any idea about data, it's a little problematic. So cases like this, we can deal with such queries using syntax, but if a person has no idea how to deal with this, they'll face an issue.

Here's another example. Say there's a team query that means we are erasing data from the teams, and some people are just analyzing the string. So I see data from it, which means the calling system is there. In the calling system, we receive the data to call anyone, and that type of wire call setup is there. So I am receiving a full-text format from the file I have to upload in the SSIS package. And some cells have a null value. It's a text file, so you can understand there are blanks in some places. I don't know the file type, so I am just trying to dump it into our SQL Server. But when I have time to get to that table, I realize that some values are null, space, and blank. So these four values make problems for me.

The evaluation was based more on the applications and the solution that the business unit wanted to use which are easier to support if they all use the same database structure. The most common was SQL Server.

At this time, all of my applications are running on SQL Server. However, in the future, if the application can be migrated to Oracle or another database then I may do that because SQL Server is very expensive.

MySQL (now owned by Oracle) is sometimes used internally for dynamic website needs, but Oracle is the only competitor evaluated for SQL Server.

We're going a lot heavier into Azure and we're going to be dealing with lots of volume because insurance data is pretty voluminous. I think some of our clients don't like the idea of having one gigantic VM system to run the database. That's one reason why they're switching to Snowflake. We had to do some SSRS stuff in the past, and I think they're moving over to Power BI mostly.

I evaluated Oracle, but I didn't like it — I prefer Microsoft. 

We compared it with Oracle and MySQL. We got a lot of dev inputs, and we also looked at the vendors supplying the solutions. We found SQL Server to be the best and chose it because of the vendor.

We have evaluated MongoDB and are in the process of transforming ourselves.

We mainly use SQL Server because it's cost-effective for our applications. We've occasionally tried other databases for various reasons. We've used the Sybase database, but the Sybase database is very close to SQL Server. We've also tried MySQL, but that was more of an exercise in porting than anything else. However, it's not a fair comparison because we had done the development on SQL Server and then used that as a porting exercise.

Some baseline comparisons were made around 2012 to Oracle, with MS SQL Server coming out to have a lower total cost of ownership.

I have a good deal of knowledge on SQL Server, and Oracle, MySQL. I have some familiarity with DB2 and PostgreSQL. The database platform chosen will ultimately depend on the needs of the client.

One of our clients is using an SQL Server on Linux. We don't use it but it is a very interesting product. It's a good trend, the Linux environment has become a market share that is growing in Egypt.

Before anybody had even considered doing any kind of database access, they reviewed all possible capabilities, according to price, functionality, and integration requirements. Ultimately, they settled from the start on SQL Server.

As far as I remember, our administration team did review other options. I'm not familiar with the options that were available prior to this, however, as they stated to me, before SQL has been the one from the go ahead, the option that they chose and they've been running with it since then.

We did not evaluate other other options before going with the solution. 

We evaluated Oracle as an alternative.

Our company is Microsoft SQL Server based. I used to use appliances like Exadata before I joined the organization. 

I was looking to see if there would be available technology solutions that would make Microsoft SQL Server work on an appliance to improve stability and scalability, as opposed to running or dividing into Intel-based processors and servers, and handling all of the operational issues.

Having a server that's optimized for the purpose of data warehousing and analytics, is something that I would be interested in. 

I am not sure if there is anything else available as a nice comparison.

We use SQL Server and we are evaluating Azure cloud, and Azure SQL.

We did not evaluate other options. The other options lacked support, lacked performance, or were too expensive.

Prior to going with SQL Server I utilized the Oracle Database.

I'm not sure if we would have looked at something else or what it might have been. If there was research and a comparison was done, that would have been a decade ago. It's been a long time. 

Within the current organisation, we did not look at other options. I was pretty confident that the product would do the job, based on my previous experience with similar products. One key factor which pushed us to choose SQL Server was the cost of the product versus the amount of work to develop/maintain.

I have also evaluated Oracle.

We were evaluating other solutions for a specific requirement in our organization. The requirement is now complete.

We are currently evaluating cloud options.

I was looking into some solutions to meet our company's needs. Endpoint Protection for Business, McAfee, and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was among the solutions I researched. For endpoint security, I prefer Microsoft Defender or McAfee Endpoint Security.

Now we're comparing the cost-effectiveness, and especially the features, and giving ourselves the ability to choose the solution, truly enabling a solution.

I evaluated Oracle Database.

I have evaluated other solutions, such as Teradata.

We are currently searching for other products to replace this one with.

No.

No, others evaluated.

No other oprions were evaluated.

The cost-benefit ratio offered by Microsoft's DW solutions is, by a long shot, much more convenient for our customers (small and medium companies) than solutions from other vendors, hands down.

We evaluated the Oracle solution.

The cost-benefit ratio offered by Microsoft's data warehouse solutions is, by a long shot, much more convenient for our customers, small and medium sized companies, than solutions from other vendors.

No.

No, I  have to accepted it 

We are a Microsoft shop, so we use Active Directory. That integrates well with this product, but we did look at Oracle. We also looked at IBM. This was the best price point for us for what we were getting.

SAP/Sybase SQL Anywhere for the small footprint which makes it suitable for embedded solutions.

SAP/Sybase SQL Anywhere for the built-in synchronization technologies available.

We did not evaluate other solutions before implementing this solution. 

At that time there was also Sybase, Oracle, MySQL. That's at the time those databases were up.

No.

No other options were evaluated.

We evaluated Oracle and PostgreSQL.

I’m not a "product" fan. I try to use "the" product which will comply smoothly with the software I’m working on.

Of course, I evaluated other options! I never choose the first option and I always try to look around to find competitive vendor options. I already know and have expertise with IBM/DB2 and Oracle solutions. For this new architecture, MS SQL was the best option at the moment for being a pilot project.

Definitely yes, with Oracle only if the needed situations cannot be met, mostly it covers better.

We also looked at Oracle 11G.

We reviewed many RDBMS platforms for suitability depending on the requirements of the customers. We would also use the likes of Oracle 12c and Amazon RDS.

It was years ago, so it’s not relevant info anymore.