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

Amazon Aurora vs Teradata 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:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
7.4
Migrating to Amazon Aurora cut costs by 30%, boosting performance, reliability, and customer satisfaction with operational efficiencies.
Sentiment score
8.1
Teradata boosts analytics speed over 100%, enhancing customer service and satisfaction, with high ROI and user approval.
Using Amazon Aurora has saved us significantly in terms of manpower costs, with nearly fifty percent savings compared to an on-premises solution.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
5.6
Subscription level dictates Amazon Aurora's support quality, with premium users receiving better service and others relying on documentation.
Sentiment score
7.1
Teradata's customer service is praised for expertise but criticized for delays, with ratings ranging from 6 to 10 out of 10.
Technical support from Amazon is rated very highly.
The technical support from Teradata is quite advanced.
Customer support is very good, rated eight out of ten under our essential agreement.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.2
Amazon Aurora provides automatic, efficient scalability, benefiting various sectors with pay-as-you-go pricing, scoring high in user satisfaction.
Sentiment score
7.4
Teradata is praised for its scalability, speed, and flexibility, despite some complexity and cost challenges in cloud environments.
This expansion can occur without incurring downtime or taking systems offline.
Scalability is complex as you need to purchase a license and coordinate with Teradata for additional disk space and CPU.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.8
Amazon Aurora is praised for stability, high availability, and performance, with minor issues not impacting applications significantly.
Sentiment score
8.4
Teradata excels in stability with minimal downtime, robust architecture, 99.9% uptime, and reliable performance, despite minor large dataset issues.
I find the stability to be almost a ten out of ten.
The workload management and software maturity provide a reliable system.
 

Room For Improvement

Amazon Aurora requires cost improvements, Oracle integration, better scalability, tuning, migration, comparison tools, and enhanced performance features.
Teradata users seek better transaction processing, enhanced scalability, modern interface, cloud focus, advanced analytics, and improved support and documentation.
There are technical challenges, such as the inability to provision the database using a PostgreSQL snapshot directly.
Unlike SQL and Oracle, which have in-built replication capabilities, we don't have similar functionality with Teradata.
 

Setup Cost

Amazon Aurora is costly compared to competitors but cost-effective for enterprises, praised for performance and pay-per-use model.
Teradata's high cost is justified by its superior performance, competitive total ownership costs, and flexible pricing models.
The pricing is reasonable and not overly expensive.
Initially, it may seem expensive compared to similar cloud databases, however, it offers significant value in performance, stability, and overall output once in use.
Teradata is much more expensive than SQL, which is well-performed and cheaper.
 

Valuable Features

Amazon Aurora provides scalable, reliable, and efficient database management with integrated AWS features, ensuring high availability and reduced maintenance.
Teradata offers efficient, scalable data management with fast query performance, robust security, automation, and cloud flexibility for businesses.
Amazon Aurora offers a 99.9% SLA compared to PostgreSQL. This ensures a high level of availability for our applications.
The data mover is valuable over the last two years as it allows us to achieve data replication to our disaster recovery systems.
 

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
Teradata
Ranking in Relational Databases Tools
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Customer Experience Management (4th), Backup and Recovery (20th), Data Integration (16th), Data Warehouse (3rd), BI (Business Intelligence) Tools (10th), Marketing Management (6th), Cloud Data Warehouse (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the Relational Databases Tools category, the mindshare of Amazon Aurora is 3.3%, down from 4.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Teradata is 5.5%, up from 5.0% 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.
SurjitChoudhury - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers seamless integration capabilities and performance optimization features, including extensive indexing and advanced tuning capabilities
We created and constructed the warehouse. We used multiple loading processes like MultiLoad, FastLoad, and Teradata Pump. But those are loading processes, and Teradata is a powerful tool because if we consider older technologies, its architecture with nodes, virtual processes, and nodes is a unique concept. Later, other technologies like Informatica also adopted the concept of nodes from Informatica PowerCenter version 7.x. Previously, it was a client-server architecture, but later, it changed to the nodes concept. Like, we can have the database available 24/7, 365 days. If one node fails, other nodes can take care of it. Informatica adopted all those concepts when it changed its architecture. Even Oracle databases have since adapted their architecture to them. However, this particular Teradata company initially started with its own different type of architecture, which major companies later adopted. It has grown now, but initially, whatever query we sent it would be mapped into a particular component. After that, it goes to the virtual processor and down to the disk, where the actual physical data is loaded. So, in between, there's a map, which acts like a data dictionary. It also holds information about each piece of data, where it's loaded, and on which particular virtual processor or node the data resides. Because Teradata comes with a four-node architecture, or however many nodes we choose, the cost is determined by that initially. So, what type of data does each and every node hold? It's a shared-no architecture. So, whatever task is given to a virtual processor it will be processed. If there's a failure, then it will be taken care of by another virtual processor. Moreover, this solution has impacted the query time and data performance. In Teradata, there's a lot of joining, partitioning, and indexing of records. There are primary and secondary indexes, hash indexing, and other indexing processes. To improve query performance, we first analyze the query and tune it. If a join needs a secondary index, which plays a major role in filtering records, we might reconstruct that particular table with the secondary index. This tuning involves partitioning and indexing. We use these tools and technologies to fine-tune performance. When it comes to integration, tools like Informatica seamlessly connect with Teradata. We ensure the Teradata database is configured correctly in Informatica, including the proper hostname and properties for the load process. We didn't find any major complexity or issues with integration. But, these technologies are quite old now. With newer big data technologies, we've worked with a four-layer architecture, pulling data from Hadoop Lake to Teradata. We configure Teradata with the appropriate hostname and credentials, and use BTEQ queries to load data. Previously, we converted the data warehouse to a CLD model as per Teradata's standardized procedures, moving from an ETL to an EMT process. This allowed us to perform gap analysis on missing entities based on the model and retrieve them from the source system again. We found Teradata integration straightforward and compatible with other tools.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Relational Databases Tools solutions are best for your needs.
842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user232068 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 5, 2015
Netezza vs. Teradata
Original published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-i-choose-net Two leading Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) architectures for Data Warehousing (DW) are IBM PureData System for Analytics (formerly Netezza) and Teradata. I thought talking about the similarities and differences…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
27%
Computer Software Company
14%
Government
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

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 ...
Comparing Teradata and Oracle Database, which product do you think is better and why?
I have spoken to my colleagues about this comparison and in our collective opinion, the reason why some people may declare Teradata better than Oracle is the pricing. Both solutions are quite simi...
Which companies use Teradata and who is it most suitable for?
Before my organization implemented this solution, we researched which big brands were using Teradata, so we knew if it would be compatible with our field. According to the product's site, the comp...
Is Teradata a difficult solution to work with?
Teradata is not a difficult product to work with, especially since they offer you technical support at all levels if you just ask. There are some features that may cause difficulties - for example,...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
IntelliFlex, Aster Data Map Reduce, , QueryGrid, Customer Interaction Manager, Digital Marketing Center, Data Mover, Data Stream Architecture
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Dow Jones, Arizona State University, Verizon, Capital One, United Nations, Nielsen, Autodesk, Fanduel
Netflix
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Aurora vs. Teradata and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.