Couchbase Capella vs Microsoft Azure SQL Database comparison

"The way the nodes are managed is interesting."

"The initial setup was straightforward."

"Microsoft's expertise in SQL Server is a significant advantage."

"The main advantage of it is that there is no infrastructure cost. We don't have to host it here. So, there is no infrastructure cost."

"We've cut costs by around 70 percent."

"We're a Microsoft customer, so it fits in with everything else we work with."

"It's easy to use and maintain. If we look at the development of the maintenance team, we are not directly responsible for any infrastructure issues. We have too many positive sides to that. No maintenance, easy to use, and we'll know the limits very well."

"It is easily scalable, and it is faster than SQL Server. It is also less expensive than using SQL Server. It has the pay-as-you-go model, and the charges are based on the usage."

"The product is quite stable. The performance is great and it's reliable."

"The ease of scaling the server up and down by simply pressing a few buttons in a dropdown menu has made our lives significantly more comfortable, especially as we aim to process more data this year by utilizing the cloud."

"Rebalancing could be improved."

"The product could be improved by including a log section for tracking activities, enhancing database integration, and providing more transparency regarding pricing and monitoring activities."

"There are certain shortcomings when it comes to the stability of the product, especially if I consider the fact that there can always be some bug-related issues in the tool."

"Lack of flexibility for developers in terms of performance assistance."

"The problem is the automated configuration."

"Scalability is an issue because we can't upgrade to new versions due to hardware limitations."

"Lacks some tools on the SQL Server for data virtualization."

"Microsoft Azure SQL Database would benefit from enhanced documentation, along with ongoing improvements to scalability and cost-effectiveness."

"Microsoft Azure SQL Database could be improved by offering an easier way to view all existing roles in the database without needing complex queries found online."

"Azure SQL can improve by adding more machine learning features like other databases, such as Cassandra or Cosmos DB."

"The pricing is actually complicated, and that is probably one downside of it. In some respects, although we can plan for the costs on a month-by-month basis, we are finding it hard to project our costings for it. Fundamentally, Microsoft is offering two pricing models, and it is challenging to understand the differences between the two. We're basically on the DTU model at the moment. That may change in the future as the size grows, but it is one of those things that we'll end up monitoring as we progress. At the moment, to get a reasonable response, generally, the price is a little high for us, but it is one of those things for which we know that we can do improvements on our code. So, it is not just the service that's the problem; it is some of the things that we need to do as well."

"I find that they are relatively expensive, especially when compared to AWS, where the prices are notably lower."

"Compared to other providers, the pricing is definitely on the affordable side."

"We have had some issues with the licensing of the solution."

"When looking at the long-term expenses associated with running software on an on-premises server, the costs are almost equivalent but when we include insurance for devices, onsite fees for servers, and other related costs, we may find that this is a cost-effective solution."

"There is no licensing cost for the solution."

"It is reasonable."

"It is expensive for us. We are looking for something less expensive and thinking of migrating the whole system."