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

Oracle Database In-Memory vs kdb+ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

kdb+
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
33rd
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Oracle Database In-Memory
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
10th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
33
Ranking in other categories
Embedded Database (4th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Relational Databases Tools category, the mindshare of kdb+ is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Database In-Memory is 2.0%, up from 1.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Relational Databases Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Oracle Database In-Memory2.0%
kdb+0.9%
Other97.1%
Relational Databases Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Nitin Garg - PeerSpot reviewer
Vice President - Financial Services at Evalueserve
An easy-to-deploy solution that can be used for data ingestion and usage
I work for a fintech company where we create several strategies generally built on finance data, which are like one-time series data. We deal with huge bulk data on a daily basis, and we use kdb+ for data ingestion and usage The most valuable feature of kdb+ is the speed at which it returns the…
Hosney Osman - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Solution Architect at Vodafone
Real-time analytics have transformed response times and support huge data volumes with compression
I do not have any comment related to the improvement of the solution; for sure, it needs improvement, but for my use cases, it is very sufficient, and I think for the biggest companies, it needs a very powerful infrastructure. The area where improvement is required the most in the product is the UI. The problem with the UI is that it is not complex for understanding, but it needs some training to know what each button does, how it works, and the many variables needed.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution returns data quickly, and data retrieval is fast in kdb+."
"We have recently deployed our database on cloud with Oracle Database In-Memory; we have a single standby on cloud, and on contingency occasions, we switch over to cloud and use it for four to five months."
"We use the tool for real-time data transfer for risk management purposes. In a trading system, conversions happen fast. We use the product to handle fast transactions with low latency."
"The on-premise version is stable. We have different teams and resources for the server side, for admin, and for development. We can easily take care of all the services and applications."
"The scalability is very good."
"We find the dashboard and the speed of data processing very valuable in Oracle Database In-Memory."
"The solution is very fast."
"The valuable features of Oracle Database In-Memory include its capability to bypass disk storage for faster memory operations, which is critical for transactions and analytics."
"The solution's ROI is excellent."
 

Cons

"The solution should have a more user-friendly user interface."
"I would like Oracle Database In-Memory to include a data replication feature."
"Technical support is below our expectations currently. It could be improved."
"The high cost of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Lacks sufficient integration with other tools."
"Oracle Database In-Memory could improve by better supporting generative AI challenges, such as hallucination management."
"We often have to find solutions on our own through the support site, so there's room for improvement in this regard."
"They should lower the price. My customers think that it's too expensive."
"Oracle Database In-Memory is more expensive than Azure, and the support from the Oracle team is not very good, especially since they do not have a support team in our region."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I rate the pricing a zero out of ten because Database In-Memory is too costly."
"The solution's pricing is high."
"The platform's licensing cost needs improvement."
"The product is expensive."
"Database In-Memory is priced a bit higher than its competitors like Microsoft."
"There is a need to make a yearly payment towards the licensing costs, after which there is any to pay towards the support cost attached to the solution."
"Oracle Database In-Memory is expensive."
"The pricing is pretty good so I rate it an eight out of ten."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Relational Databases Tools solutions are best for your needs.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
45%
Retailer
6%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Marketing Services Firm
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise23
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Oracle Database In-Memory?
We can integrate it with any data sources as well.
What needs improvement with Oracle Database In-Memory?
I do not have any comment related to the improvement of the solution; for sure, it needs improvement, but for my use cases, it is very sufficient, and I think for the biggest companies, it needs a ...
 

Comparisons

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

UniCredit, AIRBUS
Shanghai Customs
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and others in Relational Databases Tools. Updated: March 2026.
884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.