We performed a comparison between Cassandra and ScyllaDB 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."The technical evaluation is very good."
"Can achieve continuous data without a single downtime because of node to node ring architecture."
"The use of Cassandra in real-time data analytics has been pivotal for our e-commerce platform. As our platform operates 24/7, providing services to sellers and customers alike, the need for real-time updates is paramount."
"We can add almost one million columns to the solution."
"I am getting much better performance than relational databases."
"Our primary use case for the solution is testing."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of Cassandra is its fast retrieval. Additionally, the solution can handle large amounts of data. It is the quickest application we use."
"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."
"There could be more integration, and it could be more user-friendly."
"The solution doesn't have joins between tables so you need other tools for that."
"Maybe they can improve their performance in data fetching from a high volume of data sets."
"Cassandra could be more user-friendly like MongoDB."
"The solution is limited to a linear performance."
"The disc space is lacking. You need to free it up as you are working."
"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."
"The secondary index in Cassandra was a bit problematic and could be improved."
"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."
Cassandra is ranked 4th in NoSQL Databases with 19 reviews while ScyllaDB is ranked 6th in NoSQL Databases with 2 reviews. Cassandra is rated 8.0, while ScyllaDB is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cassandra writes "Well-equipped to handle a massive influx of data and billions of requests". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ScyllaDB writes "A solution that offers good performance and flexibility to its users". Cassandra is most compared with Couchbase, InfluxDB, MongoDB, Oracle NoSQL and Neo4j Graph Database, whereas ScyllaDB is most compared with MongoDB, Couchbase, Apache HBase, InfluxDB and Aerospike Database 7. See our Cassandra 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.
