Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Google Cloud SQL vs Google Cloud Spanner comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Aug 12, 2024

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

Google Cloud Spanner
Ranking in Database as a Service (DBaaS)
8th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Google Cloud SQL
Ranking in Database as a Service (DBaaS)
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Database as a Service (DBaaS) category, the mindshare of Google Cloud Spanner is 4.5%, up from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Google Cloud SQL is 15.4%, down from 18.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Database as a Service (DBaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

Ethan Lo - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable and scalable relational database that ensures a return on investment for its users
The most valuable feature of the solution is its scalability. Scalability comes with two options, among which Google Cloud Spanner can scale horizontally, compared to other relational databases that scale vertically. You can change Google Cloud Spanner's resource configuration, which is done through processing units. Suppose you set up Google Cloud Spanner initially with a hundred processing units, and then you run out of resources since your database used too much CPU. In the aforementioned scenario, you can scale up or down and face no downtime in the production phase. The solution's features are important when running a company twenty-four hours, seven days a week.
Prathap Sankar - PeerSpot reviewer
Gain control and flexibility with customizable tools but has slower performance
I am majorly working in Google Cloud SQL for building my applications Google Cloud SQL provides complete customization options, along with a dashboarding tool and a comprehensive suite of tools that can be used to customize and build any application needed. The deployment model allows for…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The application deployment in the cloud is the best feature of the infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its scalability. Scalability comes with two options, among which Google Cloud Spanner can scale horizontally, compared to other relational databases that scale vertically."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"We can scale the solution if we need to."
"Google Cloud Spanner is stable."
"Google Cloud SQL is easy to start with and allows me to scale as needed, which is advantageous from a developer perspective."
"It directly provides robust data safety. It also offers various other storage options, such as Google Cloud Storage. These services ensure data security and redundancy. Furthermore, it includes different storage classes, allowing flexible data management tailored to specific needs."
"The product is scalable."
"Ease of management and the ability to oversee the statistics of your SQL."
"It's SQL. SQL is so easy if you know something about databases. It's easy to learn."
"The most valuable feature for us is the Postgres on Google Cloud SQL since it supports most of the features we need."
"This is a stable solution and offers good performance."
"Its most valuable feature is that it's scalable. I can start off with a base of a lot of data and move as much as I want and it's the same as if asked to do a lot of infrastructure changes."
 

Cons

"The cost can be a bit high."
"I want to improve the deployment of cameras and surveillance infrastructure."
"The tool needs to improve horizontal scaling."
"The tool lacks to offer AI features."
"Google came up with something called Cloud Spanner Emulator, which fails to work like the real product if I want to develop some code and run a database locally on my machine."
"Google's technical support is good, but they tend to never reopen a case and to send us snippets from the publicly available documentation. It's not as helpful as you would expect, not just for Google Cloud SQL but for all of Google Cloud products."
"To create a seamless data integration, the title integration of these databases with the data integration platforms is essential. This is what we would like to have in a future release."
"Google Cloud SQL still needs better connectivity to outside, existing data sources."
"I would appreciate more flexibility with specific extensions applicable to engines like PostgreSQL."
"I would like to see better integration with all the different tools on the platform."
"For data analysis, the AI area of the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The performance compared to AWS is not as fast, and the technical support could be better as they don't have a dedicated team, but mostly AI handles the support now."
"Google Cloud SQL needs to improve its support for high-end I/O operations. On-prem systems with high I/O capabilities perform better, as Google Cloud SQL takes more time to handle the same tasks."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Google Cloud Spanner is an expensive solution."
"The solution is expensive."
"It is expensive."
"Price-wise, I heard that Google Cloud Spanner is on the higher side."
"The solution is affordable."
"It is not expensive, especially considering the significant reduction in database management time."
"From a financial perspective, Google Cloud SQL is on the cheaper side."
"It's really cheap. It wouldn't be more than, I believe it's around 50 euro per month for running a cloud SQL."
"While the platform’s pricing may be higher, it aligns with industry standards, considering the quality of service and features provided."
"The pricing is very much an important factor as to why we use this solution."
"You need to pay extra costs for backup and replication."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Database as a Service (DBaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
22%
Computer Software Company
12%
Retailer
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Computer Software Company
13%
University
8%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Google Cloud Spanner?
Google Cloud Spanner has all the features of a traditional relational database, including schemas, SQL queries, ACID transactions, and provides excellent integration and monitoring tools as well as...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Cloud Spanner?
Price-wise, I heard that Google Cloud Spanner is on the higher side. I am not sure if this is a rumor or if it's fake news, but I believe that having BigQuery and GCP together could be a little cos...
What do you like most about Google Cloud SQL?
The implementation part of the product was easy.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Cloud SQL?
The cost is expensive, especially for services like BigQuery, which charge based on query operations. We pay as we use, with no fixed cost.
What needs improvement with Google Cloud SQL?
Google Cloud SQL needs to improve its support for high-end I/O operations. On-prem systems with high I/O capabilities perform better, as Google Cloud SQL takes more time to handle the same tasks. T...
 

Also Known As

Google Spanner
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Streak, Optiva, Mixpanel
BeDataDriven, CodeFutures, Daffodil, GenieConnect, KiSSFLOW, LiveHive, SulAm_rica, Zync
Find out what your peers are saying about Google Cloud SQL vs. Google Cloud Spanner and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.