No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs ScyllaDB comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 25, 2026

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

Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB
Ranking in NoSQL Databases
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
115
Ranking in other categories
Database as a Service (DBaaS) (4th), Managed NoSQL Databases (1st), Vector Databases (1st)
ScyllaDB
Ranking in NoSQL Databases
9th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the NoSQL Databases category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is 5.4%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ScyllaDB is 5.6%, down from 8.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
NoSQL Databases Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB5.4%
ScyllaDB5.6%
Other89.0%
NoSQL Databases
 

Featured Reviews

Aman-Narang - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Manager at Infosys
Real-time messaging has transformed customer updates and now powers responsive AI experiences
The primary benefits of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB include horizontal scalability. The main advantage is that it handles data growth without requiring database redesign when traffic increases. Low latency access is another key benefit, as read and write operations are very fast, which is extremely helpful for real-time applications. Flexibility is also valuable because Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB uses JSON schema format, which contrasts with traditional table schemas that require time-consuming changes. In modernization scenarios where client requirements change rapidly, Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB offers more flexible schema design. High availability is another important feature, as it is well-suited for business-critical systems. My overall experience using Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB with other Azure services shows that it is more flexible compared to SQL Database and more readable because of its JSON format, making it easy to understand. It is more interactive because viewing the Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB schema clearly shows what is happening in the application and what will be achieved. In contrast, SQL requires writing many queries to obtain details, making Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB more suitable and flexible. My team's experience developing with Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB SDKs and APIs has been very comfortable and easy to implement. We are currently migrating .NET applications to Python-based AI solutions using Copilot, where we performed reverse engineering and are moving to forward engineering. We use APIs to connect with Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB and manage database containers and items, performing CRUD operations such as create, delete, and read operations, and querying JSON. We are using REST APIs with Python-based solutions, with a service layer and Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB integration.
Manikandan Gunasekaran - PeerSpot reviewer
Director of Engineering at Ola
Reliable data management with great reliability and performance
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. There's also an issue with compatibility when attempting to switch back from the enterprise to the community version.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best feature about Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is its interface, which is awesome for accessing data."
"Cosmos DB is a document database that stores data in JSON format for faster retrieval of unstructured data. I personally appreciate the speed, which is significantly better for unstructured data, especially since Cosmos DB had JSON as a data type early on."
"The most valuable features of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB include the TTL, the ability to scale up and down as needed, and geo-replication, which comes out of the box."
"The solution is extremely user-friendly and easy to navigate."
"Cosmos DB has helped our organization handle large amounts of data."
"Overall, I think Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB works fine; I don't remember any case where our developers or our clients have been disappointed with it."
"Latency and availability are incredible."
"Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB's dynamic auto-scale and serverless model have helped reduce costs and operational efforts for our organization."
"The performance aspects of Scylla are good, as always... A good point about Scylla is that it can be used extensively."
"The documentation is good. It integrates easily with our existing data infrastructure."
"The performance and scalability are good, and we hardly see any major issues with ScyllaDB."
"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."
"Scalability in performance is good."
"It is lightweight, and it requires less infrastructure."
"ScyllaDB is fast and reliable. It has good performance."
 

Cons

"At this stage, we would like more enterprise support. We use MongoDB a lot, and we're trying to get rid of MongoDB. So, I would like to see more features in the Cosmos DB API for MongoDB space."
"From about half a billion rows, we're returning maybe 20,000 in two or three minutes. We don't know why, but we are working with Microsoft and a third party to figure that out."
"Areas of improvement for Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB include indexing. While it makes data retrieval easier, it also increases costs. If there's a better way to improve indexing at a lower cost, that would be really helpful, but that's the major point for now."
"The RUs still appear to be a black box for everyone. Even though they explain read and write RUs, it remains unclear for many users."
"Performance optimization is another consideration, as it can be difficult to understand request units and query costs."
"Cosmos should be cheaper. We actually intend to stop using it in the near future because the price is too high — and because of the stability issues."
"Azure Cosmos DB is generally a costly resource compared to other Azure resources. It comes with a high cost."
"The price of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB could be a bit lower."
"ScyllaDB needs to improve its handling of transactions."
"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."
"From a sales pitch standpoint, it needs to deliver on promises of better ROI and compaction."
"We've had occasional performance challenges that required resource adjustments or optimizations in our interaction with the platform."
"Support and the availability of support need improvement. I would give them a six out of ten."
"Some of the regular commands in NoSQL do not work."
"The documentation is not well established for new developers."
"The documentation of Scylla is an area with shortcomings and needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are not consuming so much yet since we are at the beginning of using this solution. I would rate the pricing of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB a six out of ten."
"The customer had a high budget, but it turned out to be a little bit cheaper than what they expected. I am not sure how much they have spent so far, but they are satisfied with the pricing."
"The pricing and licensing model was initially difficult to understand, but as soon as I learned what was going on and how it was priced, it was pretty easy."
"The pricing for Cosmos DB has improved, particularly with the new pricing for Autoscale."
"Its price is very good for the basic stuff. When you go to a more complicated use case, especially when you need replication and availability zones, it gets a little costly."
"From a startup point of view, it appears to be expensive. If I were to create my startup, it would not have the pricing appeal compared to the competition, such as Supabase. All those other databases are well-advertised by communities. I know there is a free tier with Azure Cosmos DB. It is just not well advertised."
"The cost is the biggest limitation of this solution."
"The pricing for Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is good. Initially, it seemed like an expensive way to manage a NoSQL data store, but so many improvements that have been made to the platform have made it cost-effective."
"It's free."
"It's a bit expensive."
"It is an expensive tool compared to its competitor."
"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."
"I believe that there is a yearly licensing cost and that it's expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which NoSQL Databases solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Legal Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Transportation Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business36
Midsize Enterprise24
Large Enterprise60
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise8
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB?
I have knowledge about the pricing, setup cost, and licensing aspect of Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB?
Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB could improve cost and performance management to be more straightforward, particularly for teams managing workloads with variable traffic. More detailed and proactive reco...
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB?
My main use case for Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB is to support application workloads that require a highly scalable, low latency NoSQL database. I primarily use it to store and manage semi-structured...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Scylla?
From what I’ve seen (and experienced), ScyllaDB pricing is very dependent on how you deploy it, and that’s where most of the confusion comes from.
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...
What is your primary use case for Scylla?
We dump a lot of our data, such as every entry created with respect to when a user rides a scooter, every record gets updated to ScyllaDB. It is used as a single source of truth and it manages mass...
 

Also Known As

Microsoft Azure DocumentDB, MS Azure Cosmos DB
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TomTom, KPMG Australia, Bosch, ASOS, Mercedes Benz, NBA, Zero Friction, Nederlandse Spoorwegen, Kinectify
IBM, Investing.com, mParticle, Comcast, GE, Fanatics, Ola, CERN, adgear, Samsung
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. ScyllaDB and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.