IBM Netezza Performance Server vs ScyllaDB comparison

IBM Netezza Performance Server

Read 12 ScyllaDB reviews

2,327 Views
1,404 Comparison Views

91% willing to recommend

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between IBM Netezza Performance Server 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.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Netezza Performance Server vs. ScyllaDB Report (Updated: April 2025).

IBM Netezza Performance Server vs. ScyllaDB

Download the complete report

Helped 850,028 peers since 2012

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

IBM Netezza Performance Server

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Data Warehouse (11th)

ScyllaDB

Average Rating

7.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

NoSQL Databases (2nd)

Featured Reviews

Shiv Subramaniam Koduvayur

Project Manager at MAF Retail

Parallel data processing streamlines operations while cost and cloud integration challenge adoption

The cost of the solution is on the more expensive side, which is a concern for me. Additionally, its promotion and interaction with cloud applications are limited. The cloud version is only available in AWS, and in the Middle East, it is not well-developed in the Azure environment. For the cost to be reduced, it should match competitors. Many features need to be incorporated on the cloud.

Read full review

ArpitShah

Software Analyst at CLSA

Self-hosting complexity and the way ScyllaDB counts operations can be confusing and may not reflect actual usage

It seems we have better options available. So probably don't go for ScyllaDB. The reason is, first, it's very high. It's not as straightforward as, like, Postgres or ClickHouse to set up. It requires a complex setup. The other problem is what they call. For example, they will say that for up to a million operations, you experience this. But the problem is if they have nine servers, then your one operation is counted as nine operations, not one. So, even though you have one write, they count it as nine. It's like it's just not false premises. You can always host it yourself, but then it's way more complex. The benefits are not substantially more than those of other databases. It's not that it's slow or anything. It's good enough and all. But it's just that ClickHouse or other databases are simpler and faster and probably provide more features. So, I kind of burn out from the database, and that's why I would keep it small.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features of the IBM Netezza Performance Server are the NPS server because of the reduced maintenance and overall good performance."

"The underlying hardware that IBM provides with this appliance is made for a specific purpose, to serve performance on a large amount of data, and to do analytics as well. It is faster, when you compare it to any other product."

"The benefit is really because of the additional speed that we have and, truth be told, the more updated ETL processes and the revamped scheduler in general."

"Parallel data processing is a significant feature for me."

"IBM Netezza Performance Server is a cost-effective solution."

"We are able to execute very complex queries. Over 90 percent of our query executions are one second or less. We do millions of queries everyday."

"The most valuable feature would be the fact that it has been running for awhile in an appliance format."

"The data governance prospect... from what I've seen, that is a really powerful tool as well, to help with data lineage and keeping track of that."

More IBM Netezza Performance Server pros

"It is lightweight, and it requires less infrastructure."

"The documentation is good. It integrates easily with our existing data infrastructure."

"ScyllaDB allows fine-tuning of the table structure. Speed is probably the most critical factor because we perform a lot of heavy data ingestion. One of its core features is its ability to handle high volumes and maintain speed when accessing data. Additionally, high availability and partitioning are built-in features of ScyllaDB."

"The database is easy to use, fast, and accessible for applications because the API is straightforward."

"Firstly, if I update something, it's most likely to finish within milliseconds."

"The best features of ScyllaDB are how it synchronizes data and its failover system. There's a unique formula to decide the number of nodes you need and the minimum required, which I find helpful. It also offers encryption and supports APIs, making it great for distributed systems and scaling databases across different regions. While it's easy to use, having prior experience helps configure it properly. There are many configurations; if you don't understand them, you might mess up the design. So, understanding your system's needs, like whether it requires more read or write operations, is crucial for setting up the correct configuration."

"The performance and scalability are good, and we hardly see any major issues with ScyllaDB."

"ScyllaDB is fast and reliable. It has good performance."

More ScyllaDB pros

Cons

"The scalability is not as expected. The capacity in the black box is not enough."

"We are not able to scale. The only way to scale is to get another appliance, but we have a customers who would need us to hydrate the data between the two appliances, and Netezza does not do that."

"The only issue is that it's not expandable."

"Our main problem with it is concurrency. When there are too many users running Netezza at the same time, this is when we have the most complaints."

"LIke Teradata, we can’t add a node/SPU to the existing appliance."

"IBM Netezza Performance Server could improve its interface, support for big data, and APA-based connectivity should be available."

"The product cost is high compared to others in the market, and this cost has become unbearable for me."

"Oracle Exadata's security features, like TDE encryption, are missing in IBM Netezza Performance Server."

More IBM Netezza Performance Server cons

"Some of the regular commands in NoSQL do not work."

"It seems we have better options available. So probably don't go for ScyllaDB. The reason is, first, it's very high. It's not as straightforward as, like, Postgres or ClickHouse to set up. It requires a complex setup."

"From a sales pitch standpoint, it needs to deliver on promises of better ROI and compaction."

"If you don't have the best computing resources, then it's not easy to set up. In such cases, we have to run ScyllaDB in developer mode."

"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."

"The product needs to add more features and improve the response time of the support team."

"The documentation of Scylla is an area with shortcomings and needs to be improved."

"ScyllaDB needs to improve its handling of transactions."

More ScyllaDB cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Netezza is a costly solution. It does serve a specific purpose but it's costlier than what's available in the market, if you go to the cloud."

"The solution has a yearly licensing fee, and users have to pay extra for support."

"The pricing is very expensive. It has a lot CPUs with a lot of components in it. It also has built-in redundancy for resiliency reasons."

"The paid version of ScyllaDB is not that expensive. The main advantage of the paid version is direct support from the ScyllaDB team, which can resolve issues faster—typically within a day, compared to two to three days with the free version. The paid version also offers better guidance and support, while the free version has good documentation and is more high-level. I’d rate their support team nine out of ten because of the quick responses from their community."

"It is an expensive tool compared to its competitor."

"It's free."

"I believe that there is a yearly licensing cost and that it's expensive."

"It's a bit expensive."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which NoSQL Databases solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Comparison Review

it_user232068

Senior Data Architect at a pharma/biotech company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Aug 5, 2015

Netezza vs. Teradata

Original published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-i-choose-net Two leading Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) architectures for Data Warehousing (DW) are IBM PureData System for Analytics (formerly Netezza) and Teradata. I thought talking about the similarities and differences…

Read full review

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

71%

Financial Services Firm

Computer Software Company

Insurance Company

Computer Software Company

17%

Financial Services Firm

13%

Comms Service Provider

Hospitality Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about IBM Netezza Performance Server?

IBM Netezza Performance Server is a cost-effective solution.

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Netezza Performance Server?

The solution has a yearly licensing fee, and users have to pay extra for support.

What needs improvement with IBM Netezza Performance Server?

What do you like most about Scylla?

The performance aspects of Scylla are good, as always... A good point about Scylla is that it can be used extensively.

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Scylla?

The enterprise version comes with a cost of about $300,000 per year, however, we did not experience the promised compaction benefits.

What needs improvement with Scylla?

From a sales pitch standpoint, it needs to deliver on promises of better ROI and compaction. Additionally, ticketing and support systems could be improved due to the time it takes to get answers. T...

Oracle Exadata vs IBM Netezza Performance Server

Comparisons

Compared 19% of the time

Teradata vs IBM Netezza Performance Server

Compared 17% of the time

Snowflake vs IBM Netezza Performance Server

Compared 14% of the time

Oracle Database vs IBM Netezza Performance Server

Compared 10% of the time

Amazon Redshift vs IBM Netezza Performance Server

Compared 7% of the time

More IBM Netezza Performance Server Competitors

Couchbase vs ScyllaDB

Compared 18% of the time

Redis vs ScyllaDB

Compared 13% of the time

Cassandra vs ScyllaDB

Compared 12% of the time

Apache HBase vs ScyllaDB

Compared 11% of the time

InfluxDB vs ScyllaDB

Compared 11% of the time

More ScyllaDB Competitors

Product Reports

IBM Netezza Performance Server

Download IBM Netezza Performance Server product report

Download ScyllaDB product report

Also Known As

Netezza Performance Server, Netezza

No data available

Overview

IBM Netezza appliances are now part of IBM PureSystems - expert integrated systems with built in expertise, integration by design and a simplified user experience. Part of the PureData family, the Netezza appliance is now known as the PureData System for Analytics. It has the same key design tenets of simplicity, speed, scalability and analytics power that was fundamental to Netezza appliances.

IBM

ScyllaDB is an open-source, distributed NoSQL wide-column datastore (a highly scalable NoSQL database), known for its compatibility with Apache Cassandra, and for supporting the same protocols as Cassandra (CQL and Thrift) and the same file formats (SSTable). ScyllaDB is designed for high throughput and low latency, making it suitable for data-intensive applications. Its architecture allows it to deliver remarkable performance on a massive scale, utilizing modern multi-core servers to their fullest potential

ScyllaDB utilizes a similar architecture, data format, and query language as Apache Cassandra, providing compatibility while dramatically improving speed and scalability.

The key advantages of ScyllaDB include its rewritten C++ implementation that eliminates Cassandra's expensive Java garbage collection pauses, built-in caching for fast access to frequently used data, and shard-aware drivers for direct routing of requests. This enables it to fully leverage modern multi-core servers for massive parallelism. The community is active and the latest major release, ScyllaDB Enterprise 2023.1.0 LTS, incorporates over 5,000 code commits focused on enhancing capabilities.

ScyllaDB supports wide-column data modeling for fast read performance at scale. It includes integrated monitoring and management tools to track database health and performance. For organizations looking to boost speed and reduce costs for NoSQL workloads, ScyllaDB offers a drop-in replacement for Cassandra that delivers lower latency, higher throughput, and increased scalability with fewer nodes. Its seamless migration path makes switching from Cassandra seamless, requiring minimal code changes.

Sample Customers

Seattle Childrens Hospital, Carphone Warehouse, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Battelle, Start Today Co. Ltd., Kelley Blue Book, Trident Marketing, Elisa Corporation, Catalina Marketing, iBasis, Barnes & Noble, Qualcomm, MediaMath, Acxiom, iBasis, Foxwoods

IBM, Investing.com, mParticle, Comcast, GE, Fanatics, Ola, CERN, adgear, Samsung

IBM Netezza Performance Server vs. ScyllaDB