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

Amazon Aurora vs Infobright DB 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

Amazon Aurora
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
8th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Infobright DB
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
37th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
Data Warehouse (27th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Relational Databases Tools category, the mindshare of Amazon Aurora is 3.3%, down from 4.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Infobright DB is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Relational Databases Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Rajitha Jatothu - PeerSpot reviewer
Achieve high performance with fault-tolerant and highly available database management
Aurora is a key pillar for us, offering performance and availability. It is faster than RDS and supports multi-region clusters and scalability. One feature we value is Aurora's ability to provide a reader endpoint, allowing applications to connect without tracking replicas. It supports auto-scaling and offers several options for monitoring and optimizing database performance. Aurora's fault tolerance and ability to handle multiple replicas contribute to its reliability and high performance.
SD
If you need a real big data solution, look for a distributed solution that actually has a proven track record.
This version of Infobright has zero support for distributed scalability. The internal smart grid employed for each table has a major flaw in that the data size cannot be expunged until 2GB of data is reached at the column-level. This is a major flaw, making usage in a big-data scenario impossible. This means that you can delete as many records from a database table as you want. However, unless the 2GB aggregate size threshold was reached for some of the columns in the table, no reduction in disk space usage will occur. Only the data from the columns that reached 2GB will actually decrease. Other columns below 2GB in size do not leave the disk. I spent countless hours trying to find some workaround for this. I have nightmares of my e-mail inbox full of unsolvable questions about data size reduction from our field engineers.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Amazon Aurora stands out for its ease of use in a managed environment, inbuilt security, continuous backups, numerous read replicas, multi-region automated replication, and seamless integration with other AWS services."
"One of the most valuable features is storage scaling."
"The most valuable features of Amazon Aurora include the global instance with the global writer endpoint, which allows failovers and instance switches without requiring changes in my code, thanks to the default global Route 53 endpoint."
"One of the standout features of Amazon Aurora is that we do not need to maintain disaster recovery or manage availability zones."
"Aurora's compatibility with MySQL or PostgreSQL benefited our database management. The migration from on-premise MySQL to Aurora was similar, so we didn't need to change our source code."
"We had better control over the parameters that we could tweak in terms of intermediate storage and better indexing capabilities."
"My overall experience with Amazon Aurora is very positive. I rate it ten out of ten for its reliability and efficiency."
"The most valuable feature is that the maintainability is offloaded to the service provider. I don't have to maintain a database or do any administrative tasks, which comes in handy."
"It has very amazing smart grid query feature for very fast aggregate queries across millions of rows"
 

Cons

"A challenge I noticed is during migration from PostgreSQL RDS to Amazon Aurora. There are technical challenges, such as the inability to provision the database using a PostgreSQL snapshot directly."
"The pricing could improve. It should be reduced."
"While Amazon Aurora meets your current scaling and storage needs, there is room for improvement in cryptography and scalability compared to other databases."
"It would have been helpful if they had provided some benchmarking numbers."
"In Oracle, tools like Veridata allow for comparing databases and certifying data accuracy, even offering repair capabilities, which are missing in Aurora. There should be a similar comparison tool in Aurora."
"There is improvement needed to have more developer focus. Additionally, it would be helpful to have a stand-alone solution outside of Amazon. Amazon has a tendency to favor developing web-based clients, which may not always provide the fastest or most responsive solution as desired."
"It is a bit costly. The features are quite good, and I wouldn't say it requires any technical improvements. But from a cost perspective, some clients wouldn't go for Aurora because of that."
"I would like to see performance insights on the database based on the queries. Currently, we use SolarWinds as the monitoring tool. I would like to leverage SolarWinds’ performance insights in AWS services. SolarWinds gives larger insights when we run performance issues."
"Only the data from the columns that reached 2GB will actually decrease. Other columns below 2GB in size do not leave the disk."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could be lower compared to its competitors."
"It is quite expensive."
"There is no need to buy a license for the product. We can pay as per the use case."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive."
"The tool’s pricing depends on the instance type. For cost optimization purposes, we use the result instance category."
"It is an expensive solution."
"Our pricing was based on server instances and it was actually very cheap compared to Oracle. I guess you get what you pay for."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Relational Databases Tools solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Amazon Aurora?
Aurora's compatibility with MySQL or PostgreSQL benefited our database management. The migration from on-premise MySQL to Aurora was similar, so we didn't need to change our source code.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon Aurora?
The pricing for Amazon Aurora is nearly the same as RDS, with Aurora offering additional functionalities. This makes the product cost-effective.
What needs improvement with Amazon Aurora?
There are tuning challenges. The same methods used for tuning in RDS might not work in Aurora, and some functionalities available in MySQL may not be compatible with Aurora. There's also a concern ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
Infobright
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Dow Jones, Arizona State University, Verizon, Capital One, United Nations, Nielsen, Autodesk, Fanduel
REZ-1, SonicWALL, IntegriChain, Fuseforward International Inc., Polystar, Live Rail, Mavenir Systems, JDSU Partners, Bango
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Aurora vs. Infobright DB and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.