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

Oracle MySQL Cloud Service vs SQL Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 4, 2025

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

Oracle MySQL Cloud Service
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
14th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
21
Ranking in other categories
Open Source Databases (10th)
SQL Server
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
274
Ranking in other categories
Database Management Systems (DBMS) (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Relational Databases Tools category, the mindshare of Oracle MySQL Cloud Service is 1.2%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SQL Server is 10.6%, down from 17.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Relational Databases Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
SQL Server10.6%
Oracle MySQL Cloud Service1.2%
Other88.2%
Relational Databases Tools
 

Featured Reviews

RS
Director at Adamos Tecnologia
Efficiently manages extensive datasets with rapid connections and wide tool support
Oracle MySQL Cloud Service is easy to manage and install. It does not require a DBA for management. The connections are very fast and it supports several thousand users simultaneously without any issues. New connections do not hang server operations. As soon as new releases are put out, they work as expected. Oracle MySQL Cloud Service is supported by every vendor and tool, including architectural, integration, and generation tools, offering wide protocol support. This makes Oracle MySQL Cloud Service a valuable solution.
Peter Larsson - PeerSpot reviewer
Data Warehouse Lead at Resurs Bank AB (publ.)
Ledger and seamless integrations have strengthened trusted analytics and unified workloads
SQL Server's high availability and disaster recovery features work for supporting mission-critical applications, but there is much more to wish for. These features are not quite ready yet, although they do function. However, they could be significantly better. High availability and disaster recovery features should be improved in the next releases. I have noticed that everything could be improved or enhanced in the future, particularly temporal tables and window functions. Sometimes, I believe Microsoft releases features to stay ahead of competitors, but they do not make them feature-rich or feature-complete. They release something to be ahead of leaders and then seem to forget to maintain and upgrade them. I want Microsoft to pay more attention and be more mindful about the things they implement. It is fine to do a first release that works, but you cannot simply abandon it in the following years without service packs and improvements. You must continue to build on features rather than forgetting about them.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The scalability of the database is absolutely guaranteed by the new features."
"The product is easy to learn."
"The solution overall is very, very good. It's got good integration with other databases and adds new features often."
"MySQL is a centralized RDBMS in itself, and you don't have the overkill of having the full Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server. It's ideal, and it helps with the developer console. It has three versions for developers. It's a very good tool for open source."
"My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is that it is a better option than other solutions."
"It is very easy to start working with the product."
"It’s easy to implement and affordable."
"Oracle MySQL Cloud Service is easy to manage and install."
"It's a very capable, efficient, price-performant OLAP server on which we can build our solutions."
"The features that we have found the most valuable are reliability, availability perspective, and current scalability."
"The setup process is straightforward."
"In Poland, SQL Server is the most popular database engine, and overall, our customers like it."
"We primarily use it for our two-tier and three-tier applications."
"I like that it's a cloud solution, is simple to set up, and is simple to use."
"This is a great solution for anyone with basic knowledge of DNS who wants to build up a database."
"Technical support is very good."
 

Cons

"Integrating business intelligence or NLP solutions would help us save time and would prevent us from having to take a deep dive. Data problems seem to multiply on the system when you interact with it. Automation would save a lot of man-hours."
"The support is not that great. They're not really supporting directly anymore and relying on experts to figure out technical issues."
"Sometimes MySQL does upgrades on the server. When we are still using the old server and when they integrate the upgrade, they don't carry along some of the old syntaxes. The versions don't sync."
"Sometimes, we face syntax issues with the solution."
"There could be improvements, particularly in Firebird, where the indexing is limited to just a single B-tree index, leading to poor performance for large-scale queries."
"It is difficult to do any coding with this solution."
"MySQL should have some kind of native query browser. If it could come with a built-in connector."
"There might be minor improvements, however, I can’t identify any particular areas for improvement at the moment."
"Overall, trying to make over with Oracle, it can be improved in usage for high data migration companies of large scale."
"The tool needs to improve its pricing and technical support."
"The documentation could be much better. It's lacking right now. If there are better help pages, for even complicated queries and stuff like that that would be quite a help for users."
"Maintenance of the solution is an area of concern, and improvements can be helpful."
"The solution could be better integrated with the SQL Server Studio tool."
"We are on a monthly subscription and the price could improve."
"There is room for improvement in performance when managing a large quality of data and a high number of active users."
"Setting up some of the more complex systems could be simpler."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The license is expensive."
"Oracle has a better licensing model compared to its competitors."
"It is an open-source product."
"The solution’s paid plans are expensive."
"While the core solution itself is not exorbitant, the support services are associated with a significant maintenance fee, often ranging from twenty to thirty percent."
"The product is free since it is an open-source tool."
"The product is expensive."
"Its licensing is yearly. There are no additional costs. There is only the subscription license."
"It is annual."
"The licensing price could be better, more user-friendly."
"Licensing fees increase depending on size and performance. If you want higher performance, you should go for a different course."
"I would rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten. It is not extremely cheap but also it's not the most expensive product."
"The price could be cheaper."
"The product's price is reasonable."
"Some of the licensing are very expensive, such as the Enterprise license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Relational Databases Tools solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
University
8%
Financial Services Firm
39%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Construction Company
6%
Comms Service Provider
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business119
Midsize Enterprise60
Large Enterprise118
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle MySQL Cloud Service?
I have never paid for the full version of Oracle MySQL Cloud Service. We use the free version or the version available in RDS ( /products/amazon-rds-reviews ) from AWS ( /products/amazon-aws-review...
What needs improvement with Oracle MySQL Cloud Service?
Oracle MySQL Cloud Service should be easier to replicate and integrate into further solutions. Although it targets Linux and UNIX environments, its performance is not as optimized on Windows platfo...
What is your primary use case for Oracle MySQL Cloud Service?
I work in finance, financial services, banking, and financial services.
Would you say the price of SQL Server is high compared to that of similar products?
SQL Server is fairly priced because it has various editions, depending on the number of users, servers, or core packs you are using. If you compare the product to others in this category, the price...
Has using SQL Server helped your organization in any way?
SQL Server has helped my organization through partitioning to distribute the workload, as it splits them up into smaller pieces so the machines can easily deal with it. However, this comes with a h...
Which authentication mode is best for SQL Server?
My company connects through SQL Server authentication. We have company Windows accounts, but we do not want to connect the two, out of security concerns and to keep things separated for our own pur...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft SQL Server, MSSQL, MS SQL
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Omnis, Naveex, Rehash Technologies
Microsoft SQL Server is used by businesses in every industry, including Great Western Bank, Aviva, the Volvo Car Corporation, BMW, Samsung, Principality Building Society, Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario.
Find out what your peers are saying about Oracle MySQL Cloud Service vs. SQL Server and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.