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

Google Cloud SQL vs Microsoft Azure SQL Database comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 8, 2026

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 SQL
Ranking in Database as a Service (DBaaS)
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
Relational Databases Tools (19th), Database Management Systems (DBMS) (9th)
Microsoft Azure SQL Database
Ranking in Database as a Service (DBaaS)
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
134
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Database as a Service (DBaaS) category, the mindshare of Google Cloud SQL is 7.8%, down from 16.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure SQL Database is 10.7%, down from 16.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Database as a Service (DBaaS) Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Azure SQL Database10.7%
Google Cloud SQL7.8%
Other81.5%
Database as a Service (DBaaS)
 

Featured Reviews

VD
Database Engineer at Springer Nature
Migration to cloud eases management but needs better support for high I/O operations
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. There is also difficulty in changing the time zone after the database is set up. Moreover, some features available in MSSQL on-prem are missing on Google Cloud SQL, affecting migration potential.
Thomas Sawyer - PeerSpot reviewer
Executive Director, Platform Architecture at Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation – SMBC Group
Automatic tuning and multi-region availability have reduced manual workloads and improved performance management
The features of Microsoft Azure SQL Database that I like the most are easy scaling and high availability. I appreciate those features because it's easy to make Microsoft Azure SQL Database readily available in a multi-region infrastructure. Using Microsoft Azure SQL Database is very easy; it's much easier than SQL on-premise because I don't have to worry about deploying infrastructure, and I can rapidly deploy via infrastructure as code. I am using the automatic tuning feature in Microsoft Azure SQL Database. We are using the new feature of data encryption in Microsoft Azure SQL Database with customer-managed keys only. The reliability and stability of Microsoft Azure SQL Database platform are rock-solid; it's as good, if not better, than what our on-premise stability has been from an uptime perspective.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"From a database management perspective, it provides services without the need for me to worry about backups, scaling, or other operational issues."
"I found its storage and security to be the most valuable. It was a good experience. It is also very stable and scalable, and its support is perfect."
"Ease of management and the ability to oversee the statistics of your SQL."
"Google Cloud SQL enhances our AI-driven projects by providing features like query optimization and scalability for efficiently processing large datasets."
"The product is scalable."
"This is a stable solution and offers good performance."
"The implementation part of the product was easy."
"The solution is easy to use. I am impressed with the tool's features and functionality."
"Our productivity is the same as that of on-prem SQL."
"It integrates well on the back end with our functions and logic apps."
"Azure SQL Database is very quick and easy to use."
"Overall, Azure SQL has been great. The ease of deployment and scalability are significant reasons we push our larger clients to Azure. We could throw the kitchen sink at the thing if we wanted."
"We have multiple applications running for our customers that we can integrate into Azure SQL."
"The stability of the solution is very good."
"It's easy to use in terms of their portal, which is very nicely organized."
"Microsoft Azure SQL Database has significantly reduced our total cost of ownership by eliminating the need for a dedicated environment to host SQL."
 

Cons

"I would like to see better integration with all the different tools on the platform."
"When discussing media files, such as images and audio files, stored in Google Cloud, concerns about handling large amounts of data arise."
"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."
"Google Cloud SQL still needs better connectivity to outside, existing data sources."
"The monitoring part could be better."
"In the case of Google, they need to work on a more easy interface for users."
"For data analysis, the AI area of the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The most vulnerable problem with Google SQL is that while you can customize your access control list, it provides you with a public IP address."
"The management is entirely controlled by Microsoft, so there are some restrictions."
"I want the pricing to be improved."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The way it has been designed, in the on-premises deployments, the underlying Windows OS is highly scalable but has a very large resource requirement. A lot of power-related and memory-related things are there, which I have not seen in the RHEL and Oracle. I have not tried SQL on RHEL EXEC. On Windows, infrastructure-wise, a very large workload is running on the SQL. This issue is related to Windows, not SQL."
"The user interface (UI) could be more flexible."
"I would like to see integration with Snowflake."
"SQL Azure could improve the feature set. They are catching up to Microsoft SQL Server."
"I haven't explored SQL Azure's features much, but I would like to see some better integration with Python."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is affordable."
"While the platform’s pricing may be higher, it aligns with industry standards, considering the quality of service and features provided."
"You need to pay extra costs for backup and replication."
"The pricing is very much an important factor as to why we use this solution."
"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."
"It is not expensive, especially considering the significant reduction in database management time."
"I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten."
"If we use a smaller or free-sized Microsoft Azure SQL Database, it is extremely cost-effective and much cheaper than on-premise enterprise licenses, which are expensive."
"The solution is moderately expensive."
"We have had some issues with the licensing of the solution."
"There is no licensing cost for the solution."
"The licensing for this solution is based on subscription."
"We have the licensing fee, and we are also paying a third party to maintain it with an SLA. There is no infrastructure cost, but its running costs are higher than expected. There is the cost of the Azure cloud, which is pricier than expected, but it is not specific to SQL Azure. It is specific to the cloud. You expect it to be cheaper, but it is more expensive to run it."
"There is a license required to use the solution and it cost $30 to do the installation."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Database as a Service (DBaaS) solutions are best for your needs.
882,410 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
11%
Educational Organization
9%
University
8%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business59
Midsize Enterprise17
Large Enterprise61
 

Questions from the Community

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?
We have set up automated patch management for Google Cloud SQL, and it does on a daily basis what needs to be done, so it is pretty good overall for maintaining our database security.
What needs improvement with Google Cloud SQL?
Sometimes the sharing with third parties or configuring that in Google Cloud SQL is not the most intuitive. From a user perspective, if Google Cloud SQL integrated AI directly into the query so tha...
What do you like most about SQL Azure?
The automated scalability feature of SQL Azure has proven to be highly beneficial, particularly when deployed in the cloud.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for SQL Azure?
I would say I am at a basic experience level with the pricing, setup costs and licensing because while I am the administrator for the service, I do not provision the services and worry about the co...
What needs improvement with SQL Azure?
I have no comments at the moment on how Microsoft Azure SQL Database can be improved. I have no comments on additional features that I would like to see released in the next release. I do not have ...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BeDataDriven, CodeFutures, Daffodil, GenieConnect, KiSSFLOW, LiveHive, SulAm_rica, Zync
adnymics GmbH, LG CNS, Centrebet, netfabb GmbH, MedPlast, Accelera Solutions, Sochi Organizing Committee, realzeit GmbH
Find out what your peers are saying about Google Cloud SQL vs. Microsoft Azure SQL Database and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.
882,410 professionals have used our research since 2012.