We performed a comparison between Cassandra and InfluxDB based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NoSQL Databases solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Cassandra has some features that are more useful for specific use cases where you have time series where you have huge amounts of writes. That should be quick, but not specifically the reads. We needed to have quicker reads and writes and this is why we are using Cassandra right now."
"I am satisfied with the performance."
"Some of the valued features of this solution are it has good performance and failover."
"Cassandra is good. It's better than CouchDB, and we are using it in parallel with CouchDB. Cassandra looks better and is more user-friendly."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its speed and distributed nature."
"The most valuable features of Cassandra are the NoSQL database, high performance, and zero-copy streaming."
"A consistent solution."
"The most valuable features of InfluxDB are the documentation and performance, and the good plugins metrics in the ecosystem."
"InfluxDB's best feature is that it's a cloud offering. Other good features include its time-series DB, fast time-bulk queries, and window operations."
"In our case, it started with a necessity to fill the gap that we had in monitoring. We had very reactive monitoring without trend analysis and without some advanced features. We were able to implement them by using a time series database. We are able to have all the data from applications, logs, and systems, and we can use a simple query language to correlate all the data and make things happen, especially with monitoring. We could more proactively monitor our systems and our players' trends."
"Cassandra can improve by adding more built-in tools. For example, if you want to do some maintenance activities in the cluster, we have to depend on third-party tools. Having these tools build-in would be e benefit."
"Cassandra could be more user-friendly like MongoDB."
"The solution is not easy to use because it is a big database and you have to learn the interface. This is the case though in most of these solutions."
"The secondary index in Cassandra was a bit problematic and could be improved."
"Doesn't support a solution that can give aggregation."
"It can be difficult to analyze what's going on inside of the database relative to other databases. It can also be difficult to troubleshoot sometimes."
"There could be more integration, and it could be more user-friendly."
"InfluxDB cannot be used for high-cardinality data. It's also difficult and time-consuming to write queries, and there are some issues with bulk API."
"In terms of features that I would like to see or have, in the community version, some features are not available. I would like to have clustering and authentication in the community version."
"InfluxDB can improve by including new metrics on other technologies. They had some changes recently to pool data from endpoints but the functionality is not good enough in the industry."
Cassandra is ranked 3rd in NoSQL Databases with 7 reviews while InfluxDB is ranked 4th in NoSQL Databases with 3 reviews. Cassandra is rated 8.2, while InfluxDB is rated 7.4. The top reviewer of Cassandra writes "Simple to install, performs well, and is dependable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of InfluxDB writes "A powerful, lightweight time series database with a simple query language and easy setup". Cassandra is most compared with MongoDB, Couchbase, Oracle NoSQL, Scylla and Vertica, whereas InfluxDB is most compared with MongoDB, Cloudera Distribution for Hadoop, Oracle NoSQL, SingleStore and Couchbase. See our Cassandra vs. InfluxDB 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.
