We performed a comparison between Amazon Aurora and SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise 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 most valuable feature is that the maintainability is offloaded to the service provider. I don't have to maintain a database or do any administrative tasks, which comes in handy."
"Aurora's compatibility with MySQL or PostgreSQL benefited our database management. The migration from on-premise MySQL to Aurora was similar, so we didn't need to change our source code."
"The provision of custom read and write endpoints eliminates the need for managing a separate proxy load balancer."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to do multiple-read and single-write. These are the kinds of features that we were interested in, and Aurora takes care of that natively."
"The most valuable feature of Amazon Aurora is SQL standardization, it doesn't have its own syntax which is good. It has a lot of hands-off self-management type of activities, such as log rolling and auto-scaling."
"The solution’s scalability is good since we don’t need to take a maintenance window during unpredictable workloads. I like the solution’s behind-the-scenes happenings. It is a great feature."
"We had better control over the parameters that we could tweak in terms of intermediate storage and better indexing capabilities."
"This is a wonderful database that is, in my opinion, underrated. Users are able to get the most out of my experience by taking advantage of its centralized environment."
"SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise is a good transactional database."
"I like that SAP ASE can match code and the database index to index data in the programming language. There are many other valuable features, such as the table buffer, tuning, and various control agents like dispatcher. SAP ASE can handle many different data types, including views, domains, data elements, structures, objects, and various table types that are most useful in the application. Its modularization technique is also handy."
"They provide easy integration with other systems."
"Provides very good integration."
"It's user-friendly, especially in the logistics field."
"The actual interface is good."
"It's pretty good at handling a large number of transactions, which is critical for a banking client."
"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."
"It would have been helpful if they had provided some benchmarking numbers."
"The product's distributed query process for MySQL needs improvement."
"I would like to see performance insights on the database based on the queries. Currently, we use SolarWinds as the monitoring tool. I would like to leverage SolarWinds’ performance insights in AWS services. SolarWinds gives larger insights when we run performance issues."
"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."
"The pricing could improve. It should be reduced."
"I would like to see more AI-related features in future releases."
"Because the solution is customized. we do occasionally face unique bugs. There are always some changes that need to be made here and there."
"In my opinion, product support is not that great from SAP because they have already declared the end-of-date for SAP ASE. They will be stopping product support."
"The solution should improve view partitioning. The documentation is very confined and available only for users. Distributors also would like access to it."
"I think that the solution needs to be positioned better within the market as it appears as though the Adaptive Server is being left out of the SAP scope."
"There could be some improvements in barcode scanning and RFID access."
"Cost-wise, SAP is still expensive compared to other available products."
"SAP should refine its debugging method, and the process needs to be a little faster. It should use more Pragmas and fewer pseudocomments. I would like if SAP added more features based on advanced technologies, like artificial intelligence and voice control. The modularization and if-else techniques could also incorporate the latest technology to code and solve complex problems. The SAP Editor should be more elaborative, and it should allow many more types of statements for all uses."
"User interface could be more user friendly."
More SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon Aurora is ranked 11th in Relational Databases Tools with 7 reviews while SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise is ranked 17th in Relational Databases Tools with 11 reviews. Amazon Aurora is rated 7.8, while SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Amazon Aurora writes "Easy-to-manage platform with a valuable auto-scaling feature ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise writes " Loaded with a lot of features but the price is a drawback ". Amazon Aurora is most compared with SQL Server, Oracle Database, MariaDB, CockroachDB and MySQL, whereas SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise is most compared with SAP HANA, SQL Server, SAP SQL Anywhere, Oracle Database and IBM Db2 Database. See our Amazon Aurora vs. SAP Adaptive Server Enterprise 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.
