Discover the top alternatives and competitors to SAP HANA based on the interviews we conducted with its users.
The top alternative solutions include SQL Server, Teradata, and MySQL.
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
SAP HANA surpasses its competitors by offering real-time analytics with in-memory computing, supporting high-speed transactions, and providing advanced data processing capabilities that enable businesses to make faster and more informed decisions.
SAP Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with SAP, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
SQL Server offers dynamic allocation and user-friendly tools for flexible resource management and scalability, suitable for diverse environments. In comparison, SAP HANA excels in rapid data processing for big analytics but requires expertise and is hindered by high costs.
Teradata excels in processing speed, handling large datasets efficiently with features like scalability and parallel processing. In comparison, SAP HANA leverages in-memory computing for real-time analytics and seamless integration. Buyers may prefer Teradata for stability or SAP HANA for rapid data analysis.
Teradata has a straightforward, transparent setup cost, whereas SAP HANA involves more complexity and potentially higher initial expenses. This pricing distinction is critical when deciding between Teradata's simplicity and SAP HANA's comprehensive offerings.
Teradata has a straightforward, transparent setup cost, whereas SAP HANA involves more complexity and potentially higher initial expenses. This pricing distinction is critical when deciding between Teradata's simplicity and SAP HANA's comprehensive offerings.
SAP HANA offers robust in-memory computing for rapid data processing and real-time analytics. In comparison, MySQL, as an open-source RDBMS, is versatile and cost-effective. SAP HANA suits enterprises with complex needs, while MySQL appeals to budget-conscious users preferring simplicity.
Oracle Database is favored for its extensive diagnostic tools and reliable support in large enterprises. In comparison, SAP HANA excels in fast, real-time analytics and seamless integration within SAP environments, appealing to those needing rapid processing.
Oracle Database setup costs are straightforward and competitive, while SAP HANA's initial expenses can be higher due to advanced capabilities and infrastructure requirements.
Oracle Database setup costs are straightforward and competitive, while SAP HANA's initial expenses can be higher due to advanced capabilities and infrastructure requirements.
SAP HANA excels in high-speed analytics and is ideal for large enterprises with complex data needs. In comparison, MariaDB, with its open-source flexibility, is a cost-effective choice for small to medium businesses seeking scalability and ease of deployment.
The setup cost for SAP HANA is relatively higher compared to MariaDB, highlighting a key difference in initial expenses between these two database solutions.
The setup cost for SAP HANA is relatively higher compared to MariaDB, highlighting a key difference in initial expenses between these two database solutions.
IBM Db2 is ideal for businesses needing robust security, cross-platform versatility, and advanced SQL capabilities. In comparison, SAP HANA provides unmatched in-memory processing speed for rapid analytics. Both offer distinct strengths, making them suitable for diverse organizational demands.
Denodo excels with cost-effective licensing, data virtualization, and integration capabilities, making it appealing for medium to large enterprises. In comparison, SAP HANA offers powerful in-memory processing and seamless integration with SAP solutions, ideal for enterprises needing comprehensive, robust data management.
Denodo offers a cost-effective setup compared to the higher setup costs associated with SAP HANA, making it a more budget-friendly option for businesses.
Denodo offers a cost-effective setup compared to the higher setup costs associated with SAP HANA, making it a more budget-friendly option for businesses.
SAP HANA excels in-memory computing for fast processing and scalability, beneficial for enterprise needs. In comparison, Amazon Aurora offers ease of use and cost efficiency, supporting MySQL and PostgreSQL. SAP HANA suits large operations, whereas Aurora simplifies cloud-based deployments.
SAP HANA generally involves higher setup costs due to its complexity, while Amazon Aurora offers a more cost-effective setup with its managed service model. This distinction highlights notable differences in the initial investment required for each solution.
SAP HANA generally involves higher setup costs due to its complexity, while Amazon Aurora offers a more cost-effective setup with its managed service model. This distinction highlights notable differences in the initial investment required for each solution.
SAP HANA excels with in-memory processing for real-time analytics, making it ideal for speed-centric operations. In comparison, IBM Cloud Pak for Data focuses on data governance and machine learning, offering flexibility with containerization and robust data management capabilities, appealing to dynamic business needs.
SAP HANA offers real-time operations and in-memory data processing, ideal for complex analytics. In comparison, CockroachDB excels in distributed architecture, providing fault tolerance and geo-replication. SAP HANA faces high costs, while CockroachDB benefits from manageable pricing and PostgreSQL compatibility challenges.
SQLite is ideal for local storage with its lightweight, serverless architecture. In comparison, SAP HANA is suited for enterprise needs with its advanced real-time analytics. SQLite offers cost efficiency, while SAP HANA justifies its expense with high performance in data-intensive environments.
SAP HANA offers advanced in-memory computing ideal for rapid data processing and scalability, while IBM Informix stands out for reliability and hybrid data capabilities. In comparison, Informix's competitive pricing suits small to mid-sized businesses, as HANA justifies costs for larger enterprises.
SAP HANA's real-time analytics, flexibility, and integration make it ideal for large enterprises, while Oracle Database In-Memory excels in analytic queries and data warehousing. In comparison, Oracle offers robust database storage and analytics deployment, appealing to those needing structured query support.
SAP HANA setup costs are relatively high, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while Oracle Database In-Memory offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to businesses with limited budgets.
SAP HANA setup costs are relatively high, reflecting its advanced capabilities, while Oracle Database In-Memory offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to businesses with limited budgets.
SAP HANA excels in transaction processing with in-memory computing and data management. In comparison, AtScale A3 excels in connecting to cloud warehouses, offering scalability. While SAP HANA's robust capabilities ensure long-term value, AtScale A3's flexibility and pricing offer immediate, scalable returns.
SAP HANA involves substantial setup costs, while AtScale Adaptive Analytics (A3) tends to offer more cost-effective implementation. This difference can significantly impact budgeting decisions for businesses considering advanced analytics solutions.
SAP HANA involves substantial setup costs, while AtScale Adaptive Analytics (A3) tends to offer more cost-effective implementation. This difference can significantly impact budgeting decisions for businesses considering advanced analytics solutions.
SAP HANA excels in real-time database management with robust in-memory features and strong security, enhancing supplier relationships. In comparison, Oracle Multitenant efficiently consolidates databases with cost-effective cloning. SAP HANA supports integration, while Oracle Multitenant improves database flexibility and upgrade paths.
SAP HANA's setup cost is often higher due to its comprehensive features, while Oracle Multitenant typically offers a more cost-effective alternative with its multitenancy capabilities.
SAP HANA's setup cost is often higher due to its comprehensive features, while Oracle Multitenant typically offers a more cost-effective alternative with its multitenancy capabilities.
SAP HANA excels with its in-memory processing and complex data handling for large operations. In comparison, Oracle Java DB provides a lightweight structure and easy integration, appealing for smaller projects. SAP HANA suits enterprises needing robust power, while Oracle Java DB caters to quick setups.
SAP HANA's setup costs are higher than Oracle Java DB, making it suitable for enterprises with larger budgets, while Oracle Java DB offers a more cost-effective solution.
SAP HANA's setup costs are higher than Oracle Java DB, making it suitable for enterprises with larger budgets, while Oracle Java DB offers a more cost-effective solution.
SAP HANA excels in real-time analytics and SAP integration. In comparison, Exasol emphasizes speed and efficiency. SAP HANA suits SAP-centric enterprises, offering comprehensive support and features, while Exasol attracts those seeking quick deployments and rapid query execution with cost-effective pricing.
SAP HANA incurs higher setup costs, offering comprehensive features, while Exasol Data Warehouse provides a more cost-effective setup with scalable performance.
SAP HANA incurs higher setup costs, offering comprehensive features, while Exasol Data Warehouse provides a more cost-effective setup with scalable performance.
SAP HANA offers an enterprise-level framework with real-time analytics and complex data capabilities for large IT environments. In comparison, DuckDB provides simplicity and efficiency, appealing to buyers seeking lightweight applications with quick deployment and cost-effective, flexible solutions for small-scale tasks.
SAP HANA typically incurs a higher setup cost due to its complexity and enterprise-level features, whereas DuckDB offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to users seeking simplicity and efficiency at a lower price point.
SAP HANA typically incurs a higher setup cost due to its complexity and enterprise-level features, whereas DuckDB offers a more cost-effective setup, appealing to users seeking simplicity and efficiency at a lower price point.
Progress OpenEdge RDBMS is valued for scalability and ease of deployment, benefiting small businesses with low setup costs. In comparison, SAP HANA excels with in-memory processing and real-time analytics, appealing to large enterprises desiring comprehensive support and cutting-edge data management despite higher investment.
Progress OpenEdge RDBMS involves lower setup costs compared to SAP HANA, which tends to be higher due to its comprehensive analytics capabilities, making it suited for businesses with complex data demands.
Progress OpenEdge RDBMS involves lower setup costs compared to SAP HANA, which tends to be higher due to its comprehensive analytics capabilities, making it suited for businesses with complex data demands.
SAS Federation Server excels in data integration with cost-effective deployment, appealing to businesses wanting quick system integration. In comparison, SAP HANA's robust analytics and high-speed processing, despite higher cost, attract enterprises seeking advanced real-time data insights and future-oriented tech investments.
SAS Federation Server offers a more cost-effective setup cost compared to SAP HANA, making it a budget-friendly option. In contrast, SAP HANA commands a higher setup cost, reflecting its robust feature set and enterprise capabilities.
SAS Federation Server offers a more cost-effective setup cost compared to SAP HANA, making it a budget-friendly option. In contrast, SAP HANA commands a higher setup cost, reflecting its robust feature set and enterprise capabilities.
