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

Amazon Aurora vs SQL Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 12, 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
SQL Server
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
1st
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
268
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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 SQL Server is 18.6%, down from 23.1% 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.
Azizul Haque - PeerSpot reviewer
It has eliminated all kinds of inconsistencies, and it is reliable, secure, and fast
I don't know whether SQL Server can support large organizations where the database size is more than 100 GB. It might be because of SQL Server, or it might be because of the programming of the software vendor, but a lot of people think that it is a problem with SQL Server. It can't handle a large amount of data or large data size. In terms of its usage, about 90% of our applications are running on the SQL Server database. We have around 1,600 users for our software, and all the applications are connected to the SQL Server database.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 most valuable features is storage scaling."
"The solution’s scalability is good since we don’t need to take a maintenance window during unpredictable workloads. I like the solution’s behind-the-scenes happenings. It is a great feature."
"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."
"Aurora's features that I find the most beneficial include its database backup strategy, performance options, and input-output operations."
"Aurora is a key pillar for us, offering performance and availability."
"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."
"The provision of custom read and write endpoints eliminates the need for managing a separate proxy load balancer."
"This solution is user-friendly and easy to understand."
"SQL Server scales well."
"The performance is reliable."
"The installation is pretty straightforward."
"It is easy to use for a BI specialist."
"I have contacted technical support, and overall my experience with technical support was okay."
"The security and vulnerability management are well-managed through the vendor."
"SQL Server is easy to manage."
 

Cons

"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."
"Room for improvement might be in the UI, integrations, or data working capabilities for better user experience."
"There are tuning challenges."
"One of the most valuable features is storage scaling."
"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."
"It would have been helpful if they had provided some benchmarking numbers."
"I would like to see more AI-related features in future releases."
"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."
"Database support could be improved."
"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."
"Sometimes the system hangs. Its databases should be able to deal with more data in a faster way. Its speed of processing larger amounts of information should be improved."
"Improvement in SQL Server should focus on lowering the high cost, especially for environments requiring extensive CPU and memory usage like data warehousing"
"In terms of improvement, it could use more integration with other products."
"We would like to have a common storage option in the SQL Server. This option is available in Oracle Database. It would be great if Microsoft could create something like a columnstore that has not only indexing but also tables for common storage."
"The only item which I can list is application failure during Integration Services debugging, when restarting a process flow. In a number of instances the solutions fails. I have not given this much thought and simply stop and start the debugging service rather than restarting."
"SQL Server doesn't have proper bitmap indexing, proper columnar databases, or proper implementation of materialized views."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is an expensive solution."
"It is quite expensive."
"The price could be lower compared to its competitors."
"I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, with ten being expensive."
"There is no need to buy a license for the product. We can pay as per the use case."
"The tool’s pricing depends on the instance type. For cost optimization purposes, we use the result instance category."
"On a scale of one to ten, when one is cheap and ten is an expensive solution, I rate the product price as seven. The product is expensive."
"SQL Server is an expensive solution."
"There is no licensing cost for SQL Server."
"I rate the product’s pricing a six out of ten."
"The SQL server is affordable. I rate the pricing a five out of ten."
"Currently, almost all of my machines are in Azure and I think it is the best way of licensing now (VM+software)."
"Licensing fees increase depending on size and performance. If you want higher performance, you should go for a different course."
"There is a license required for this solution and we pay monthly. The price is reasonable compared to other solutions."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Relational Databases Tools solutions are best for your needs.
844,944 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%
Educational Organization
53%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

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 ...
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...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Microsoft SQL Server, MSSQL, MS SQL
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Dow Jones, Arizona State University, Verizon, Capital One, United Nations, Nielsen, Autodesk, Fanduel
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 Amazon Aurora vs. SQL Server and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.