Amazon Aurora vs IBM solidDB comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and IBM are both solutions in the Relational Databases Tools category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #7 with an average rating of 8.6, while IBM is ranked #41. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 3.3% mindshare in SQL, compared to IBM’s 0.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Amazon Aurora

Read 20 Amazon Aurora reviews

2,172 Views
2,063 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

IBM solidDB

Read 1 IBM solidDB review

384 Views
365 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Amazon Aurora

IBM solidDB

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Amazon Aurora and IBM solidDB based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and others in Relational Databases Tools.

To learn more, read our detailed Relational Databases Tools Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Relational Databases Tools

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 886,077 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Amazon Aurora

Ranking in Relational Databases Tools

7th

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Database Management Systems (DBMS) (6th)

IBM solidDB

Ranking in Relational Databases Tools

41st

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Relational Databases Tools category, the mindshare of Amazon Aurora is 3.3%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM solidDB is 0.7%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Relational Databases Tools Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Amazon Aurora	3.3%
IBM solidDB	0.7%
Other	96.0%

Relational Databases Tools

Featured Reviews

Adnan Shafiq

Associate Vice President - Database Management (Principal Solutions Architect) at Northbay

High availability and geographical redundancy ensure reliable performance and cost efficiency

Amazon Aurora provides up to fifteen to sixteen read replicas. It replicates data across multiple Availability Zones, ensuring high availability and geographical redundancy, which can be considered a GR instead of a DR. As a managed service, maintenance tasks like backup and restore are handled by AWS, saving my organization significant time and money. Additionally, its fast cloning feature allows us to create a new clone from a large database swiftly, similar to a zero-copy cloning feature in Snowflake. This makes Amazon Aurora a compelling choice for my organization.

Read full review

it_user722241

Senior System Engineer at a comms service provider with 1,001-5,000 employees

No other solution came close to this product's speed and tech support is on a really high level

If you need local DB cache with extreme speed, then go for it, if you need something to work as a distributed cloud database, then solidDB would not be the right decision. With our Telco experience, we help with suggestions for new features and improvements of existing ones for new versions of solidDB. Also, in our labs, we do some pre-alpha testing to help them to complete some new features in the right way.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Amazon Aurora's best features are about scaling up and scaling down, which is perfect."

"Amazon Aurora is built on community databases and AWS has added additional features to it, allowing customers to have enterprise-level features at a lower cost."

"The provision of custom read and write endpoints eliminates the need for managing a separate proxy load balancer."

"Amazon Aurora stands out for its ease of use in a managed environment, inbuilt security, continuous backups, numerous read replicas, multi-region automated replication, and seamless integration with other AWS services."

"Aurora's features that I find the most beneficial include its database backup strategy, performance options, and input-output operations."

"Aurora is a key pillar for us, offering performance and availability."

"Another advantage is that with AWS handling administration, responsibilities like database provisioning and maintenance are significantly reduced."

"Cost-wise, switching to Amazon Aurora is beneficial, saving me around $60,000 per year."

More Amazon Aurora pros

"Memory cache DB and carrier grade high availability, best fit to Telco demands."

Cons

"There are tuning challenges."

"While Amazon Aurora meets your current scaling and storage needs, there is room for improvement in cryptography and scalability compared to other databases."

"There is improvement needed to have more developer focus. Additionally, it would be helpful to have a stand-alone solution outside of Amazon. Amazon has a tendency to favor developing web-based clients, which may not always provide the fastest or most responsive solution as desired."

"A challenge with stability is the lack of long-term log retention."

"It would have been helpful if they had provided some benchmarking numbers."

"Sometimes mistakes can be easily made, and people can waste money by mistake if they do not know what they are doing."

"There are tuning challenges. The same methods used for tuning in RDS might not work in Aurora, and some functionalities available in MySQL may not be compatible with Aurora."

"It is a bit costly. The features are quite good, and I wouldn't say it requires any technical improvements. But from a cost perspective, some clients wouldn't go for Aurora because of that."

More Amazon Aurora cons

"Data replication and data distribution between multiple nodes definitely have room for improvement here."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive."

"It is quite expensive."

"The tool’s pricing depends on the instance type. For cost optimization purposes, we use the result instance category."

"There is no need to buy a license for the product. We can pay as per the use case."

"It is an expensive solution."

"The price could be lower compared to its competitors."

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Relational Databases Tools solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

886,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

16%

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Retailer

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	13

No data available

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon Aurora?

The pricing for Amazon Aurora is different from DocumentDB because DocumentDB is cheaper. However, when you manage the administration more closely, you can control costs better with Amazon Aurora. ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Amazon Aurora?

I would like to see some tutorials from Amazon for Aurora because I'm too new to it. I believe Amazon can make more tutorials for the product since there's a lot of reading required, and a short tu...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Amazon Aurora?

The migration process to Amazon Aurora is the best part; it's one of its key strengths, as we hardly had any hiccups during migration, which was very smooth and pretty straightforward given our dat...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

YugabyteDB vs Amazon Aurora

Compared 14% of the time

Oracle Database vs Amazon Aurora

Compared 12% of the time

SQL Server vs Amazon Aurora

Compared 10% of the time

Oracle Database Cloud Service vs Amazon Aurora

Compared 9% of the time

CockroachDB vs Amazon Aurora

Compared 9% of the time

More Amazon Aurora Competitors

SQL Server vs IBM solidDB

Compared 28% of the time

MySQL vs IBM solidDB

Compared 23% of the time

Oracle Database vs IBM solidDB

Compared 17% of the time

Oracle Java DB vs IBM solidDB

Compared 16% of the time

SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise vs IBM solidDB

Compared 8% of the time

More IBM solidDB Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Amazon Aurora

April 2026

Download Amazon Aurora product report

Buyer's Guide

Relational Databases Tools

March 2026

Download IBM solidDB product report

Also Known As

No data available

solidDB

Overview

Amazon Aurora is a MySQL and PostgreSQL-compatible relational database built for the cloud, that combines the performance and availability of traditional enterprise databases with the simplicity and cost-effectiveness of open source databases.

Amazon Aurora is up to five times faster than standard MySQL databases and three times faster than standard PostgreSQL databases. It provides the security, availability, and reliability of commercial databases at 1/10th the cost. Amazon Aurora is fully managed by Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS), which automates time-consuming administration tasks like hardware provisioning, database setup, patching, and backups.

Amazon Aurora features a distributed, fault-tolerant, self-healing storage system that auto-scales up to 64TB per database instance. It delivers high performance and availability with up to 15 low-latency read replicas, point-in-time recovery, continuous backup to Amazon S3, and replication across three Availability Zones (AZs).

Visit the Amazon RDS Management Console to create your first Aurora database instance and start migrating your MySQL and PostgreSQL databases.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

IBM solidDB is a relational database server that combines the high performance of in-memory tables with the nearly unlimited capacity of disk-based tables.

Pure in-memory databases are fast, but strictly limited by the size of memory. Pure disk-based databases allow nearly unlimited amounts of storage, but their performance is dominated by disk access. Even if the computer has enough memory to store the entire database in memory buffers, database servers that are designed for disk-based tables can be slow because the data structures that are optimal for disk-based tables are far from being optimal for in-memory tables. The solidDB solution is to provide a single hybrid database server that contains two optimized engines inside it:

The main-memory engine (MME) is optimized for in-memory access.
The disk-based engine (DBE) is optimized for disk-based access.

Both engines coexist inside the same server process, and a single SQL statement can access data from both engines.

IBM

Sample Customers

Dow Jones, Arizona State University, Verizon, Capital One, United Nations, Nielsen, Autodesk, Fanduel

Iskratel

Buyer's Guide

Relational Databases Tools

March 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and others in Relational Databases Tools. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

886,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.