MongoDB Atlas alternatives and competitors

I manage services and keep them running. The business analyzes the social media data with machine learning, and that data is stored in MongoDB.

Administering the solution is easy.

The administration is not very interactive. Most of the time, you don't need to interact with the database, just create a user and indexes. It's not very friendly for developers.

Based on its own habitat, it's not ACID compliant. If it had an ACID compliant option, it would be more useful for database administration.

I have been using this solution for almost three years.

It's a stable solution.

I think there are two kinds of support. One of them is local. If there is any trouble, we open the ticket with a local vendor. If they can't solve those problems, they escalate the problem to the level three engineers at MongoDB.

I would rate their technical support 4 out of 5.

I have also used Microsoft SQL databases. There's a distinction between SQL and MongoDB because one of them is based on the schema first. The other is not schema, not permanent, because of ACID compliant databases. The transaction is very important at the SQL, MYSQL, and Postgre databases, so if any transaction fails, it has to roll back because of the schema at most of ACID compliant databases. 

There are 35 million customers that consume those databases, like a POC system. Lots of transactions passing through the system are based on Microsoft SQL. Only semi-structured data – like a document based system like Twitter and social media data – is based on MongoDB.

There are two kinds of setup. One of those setups is sharding, and there is replication. The other setup is hybrid. It's not hard to implement those systems.

Setup is easy. There are only a few commands that you have to execute. First of all, the design is a very important part of it. If you design it based on the best practices, it's easy.

As a database administrator, all those things come around as ready to run. You only need to log in to the server and implement SQL, Mongo, and MySQL databases to implement. It takes only half a day to implement those.

We had a lot of documentation. Most of the time, we couldn't expand those rules, but it's easy to implement. 

We have almost 11 people on the database team.

Comparing the price between the MongoDB and Microsoft SQL Server, we are using the enterprise edition of Microsoft SQL Server, which is more expensive than MongoDB.

I would rate the price of MongoDB 4 out of 5.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

It's a solid product. A lot of issues have been resolved. It's very sustainable, and it takes minimal effort to solve a problem. It's very easy to deploy.

We use this solution for our NoSQL requirement. We store data, like JSON data, in MongoDB.

It's deployed on the cloud with AWS.

It's a good solution for NoSQL databases.

It would be better if there were more integration capabilities with other products.

I have been using this solution for six months.

It's stable.

It's scalable.

We would like to increase usage. Right now, we have 100 people using MongoDB, but in the future, our customers will be around one million when we open up the crypto exchange. 

Currently, we have a skilled DBA and don't need any consultancy. In the future, if there are more customers in all of our databases and the DBA is not enough to handle issues, then we will use a consultant for bottlenecks.

I have also used Oracle.

Setup is straightforward. Installing MongoDB takes only one day, but it will take you one week to customize MongoDB for all of the use cases.

For deployment and maintenance, we need two or three DBAs for both MongoDB and MariaDB.

We pay for a license.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

I would recommend MongoDB Atlas for those who want to start using it.