Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
reviewer2384076 - PeerSpot reviewer
BI Specialist at a educational organization with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
Highly stable and easy to use, but its pricing and quality could be improved
Pros and Cons
  • "SQL Server is a highly stable solution."
  • "The pricing and quality of the product could be improved."

What is most valuable?

SQL Server is a highly stable solution.

What needs improvement?

The pricing and quality of the product could be improved.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using SQL Server for more than 40 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I rate SQL Server a nine out of ten for stability.

Buyer's Guide
SQL Server
March 2025
Learn what your peers think about SQL Server. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Our clients for SQL Server are usually enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten for scalability.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

What other advice do I have?

Since SQL Server was one of the most commonly used products initially, it was very easy to use. I'm moving away from the solution because there are now better data storage tools. SQL Server was used for the postal service in the Netherlands, where the postal buses on the street were analyzed. SQL Server is always deployed on the cloud.

Data recovery and backup are sometimes hard with SQL Server because of the data store size. Based on the data structure, I would sometimes recommend the solution to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
PeerSpot user
System Engineer at CMC CSI saigon
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Easy to install, reliable, and reasonably priced
Pros and Cons
  • "The license fee is very low."
  • "We have no vision. We don't know when or how we have been hacked."

What is our primary use case?

SQL Server is only running in China, it is not connected to our site.

We have some PCs running on Windows 7, but it is not supported.

What needs improvement?

We have no vision. We don't know when or how we have been hacked.

We require expert support with it. That is why I am looking for CRMs.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using SQL Server for one year.

We use several versions such as 2008, 2012, and 2015.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

SQL Server is stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We are not running more than 1%. Scalability needs improvement.

We have 415 users in our organization.

We have plans to increase our usage.

We have an Active Directory system, so we can install antivirus on the endpoints.

How are customer service and support?

Normally, we can check with the deployment person, and our IT team will respond to the message once my team has deployed it.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have some experience with McAfee MVISION Endpoint. We are focused on the MV1 edition. We have to blend into the EDR.

McAfee has three editions, MVISION 1, 2, and 6. We are still working with version 1.

We are also working with Endpoint Plan 1.

We have 15 servers, both Windows OS and Linux OS.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is not complex.

We have an in-house IT team that can deploy this solution.

What about the implementation team?

We have some people who have worked in IT and with endpoint software. I believe my team is capable of handling the new software, and solutions.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licenses are purchased annually.

The license fee is very low.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I was looking into some solutions to meet our company's needs. Endpoint Protection for Business, McAfee, and Microsoft Defender for Endpoint was among the solutions I researched. For endpoint security, I prefer Microsoft Defender or McAfee Endpoint Security.

Now we're comparing the cost-effectiveness, and especially the features, and giving ourselves the ability to choose the solution, truly enabling a solution.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SQL Server a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
SQL Server
March 2025
Learn what your peers think about SQL Server. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2025.
844,944 professionals have used our research since 2012.
System engineer at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
Real User
Beneficial querying, scalable, and stable
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature would most likely be querying. We query a lot, we use a lot of stored procedures. As for other features, such as replication and all other more fancy features we don't use them the most. I do not know, but perhaps the DBAs would be the best people who know of the features that they use, but as far as how I use it, it's just for querying and running stored procedures. We use the bare minimum features."
  • "If SQL Server could perhaps run on Linux, that would be good. Most of us prefer Linux and I've used a lot of Linux. I understand that SQL Server is quite powerful, but I'm not sure if the functionality is there, but if it could be used in an open-source type of environment, it would be very good."

What is our primary use case?

We provide support services to clients. We find that some of our clients are running the latest system while others are still on Windows 2016, others are moving to 2019. Some other clients take time to upgrade. If I interact with five clients, I'll basically be in five different environments.

Our use case for the SQL Server is for transaction processing. We store all the transactions that occur. For example, if you now purchase something from the point of sale, all the information about the good you are purchasing gets stored on the SQL Server. 

When you perform a transaction that information is stored at the bank that owns the point of sale and perhaps even your bank, where your money is will be stored in a SQL Server.

All the people in all of the organizations, which are involved in the process use SQL Server.

If your transaction goes through my server, I store part of the transaction there, and if I have to route that transaction to Visa or Mastercard, they have their own SQL Server, and they also store the transaction up until you get receive your goods at the particular merchant. Almost everyone in that transaction stores the information on their respective Microsoft SQL server.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature would most likely be querying. We query a lot, we use a lot of stored procedures. As for other features, such as replication and all other more fancy features we don't use them the most. I do not know, but perhaps the DBAs would be the best people who know of the features that they use, but as far as how I use it, it's just for querying and running stored procedures. We use the bare minimum features.

We do not know all the features of SQL Server.

What needs improvement?

If SQL Server could perhaps run on Linux, that would be good. Most of us prefer Linux and I've used a lot of Linux. I understand that SQL Server is quite powerful, but I'm not sure if the functionality is there, but if it could be used in an open-source type of environment, it would be very good.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using SQL Server for approximately 10 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

SQL Server is stable and is a high-performance database. We do hundreds of transactions per second, it's fairly robust, it does not struggle. Mostly, if your hardware is strong enough and you've set it up properly, then you can actually perform a lot of transactions per second on a SQL Serving installation.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of SQL Server is relatively easy. if you are in a Microsoft environment, then I think that it relatively it should not be that difficult. However, I haven't been on a project whereby we have had to scale.

SQL Server is suitable for all companies in my experience, ranging from small to large enterprises businesses.

How are customer service and support?

I have not dealt much with technical support, because most of the time when we have issues, we go online. If it's a Microsoft issue, then we go and read up what that issue is. If there's an error, then there are places on the Microsoft support system where we are able to enter in the error code and it is able to tell you why you have that problem. As far as dealing or interacting with people or technical support from Microsoft, I have not done that.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I use MySQL and when comparing the solutions I have found the SQL Server is much more professional, and it's quite big and robust. MySQL is a community of people who are contributing to a project and you have to hack them in order for it to work. But it is quite good as well.

How was the initial setup?

The installation is straightforward and not complex. However, it depends on some of the features that you may want to use. I think it is simply because you only need to tick whatever functionalities you want to use and the ones that you don't need to use, you don't select them.

What about the implementation team?

Most of the time we are doing the implementation from scratch. If it's a big bank, then they would normally have dedicated people who deal with SQL. However, it depends on the customer.

There is some maintenance that is required, such as updates and tuning. We need to find ways of filling up the data so that it doesn't get stale but normally with regular updates, you should be fine.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I cannot comment on the price because I find that the organization already has a license when I arrived. I have not had a sneak peek at the price. When you join an organization, they tell you we are using the 2018 version and that someone purchased it. I don't know who purchased it, I'm not privy to that kind of information.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to companies that are wanting to implement the solution is they have to make sure that they've have a proper skillset. When you have the proper skillset or people who are certified it would make for a better investment into the product. When you are certified, then you know the system in and out and you should be able to have the best implementation for the type of business you have.

I rate SQL Server an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Irad Dukad - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at Ducart
Real User
Top 10
Scalable, stable and easy to use for a host of applications
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution can be used for a host of applications."
  • "The maintenance and tasks should be improved so as to reduce database files."

What is our primary use case?

The solution can be used for a host of applications.

What needs improvement?

The maintenance and tasks should be improved so as to reduce database files.

The complexity of the database should also be reduced, so that its size can be diminished. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using SQL Server for around ten years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution from the 2008 version is stable. I like the defined database and the ease with which it can be used and that enquiries can be made. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I believe the solution to be scalable and plan to increase our usage. 

How was the initial setup?

Installation is relatively easy, although I do not recall how long it took. 

What about the implementation team?

We made use of an integrator.

There is not much technical team required for the deployment and maintenance. It consists solely of engineers.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licensing is on an annual basis. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Prior to going with SQL Server I utilized the Oracle Database.

What other advice do I have?

There are around 15 people making use of the solution in our organization. Every computer processing unit has its own license. 

I would recommend the solution to other users. 

I rate SQL Server as an eight out of ten. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Vice President, Product Engineering at Logitix
Real User
Reliable with good scalability and offers a very high level of performance
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution offers very high performance."
  • "The Task Scheduler has a lot of shortcomings. This could be improved quite a bit."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution as a relational database system.

What is most valuable?

The solution offers very high performance.

It is a very reliable solution. We find it to be quite stable.

We've found the product to be very scalable, specifically from MSSQL

The product offers various deployment models.

What needs improvement?

The Message Broker portion of the solution is not very scalable in comparison to the rest of the solution. The problem is, you can exclude that portion.

The Task Scheduler has a lot of shortcomings. This could be improved quite a bit.

The enterprise version of the product should be more cost-effective.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using the solution for the last 15 or so years. It's been a while. We have a lot of experience with it.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of the product is very good. It offers excellent performance. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is extremely scalable. If a company needs to expand, it can do so without any problems.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The enterprise version of the solution needs to be priced more competitively.

We have a couple of models. We lease through Azure monthly, which is for the Standard version. We have had to purchase the Enterprise version to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars, which is just ridiculous.

On top of that, there aren't really any other knock-on costs.

What other advice do I have?

We have experience with almost every angle of Microsoft ecosystem that you could imagine.

We're a direct customer. We own a MSSQL server. We have it deployed both on-premises and on the cloud, so we use different deployment models. We have distinct instances in the cloud and we have distinct instances in our on-prem.

I would warn other organizations to not use their Message Broker and don't rely on their Task Scheduler. Look elsewhere. Go look at Oversource, Rabbit MQ, Azure Message Broker, or something other than what's built into Microsoft's SQL server. That would be my advice.

Our original architecture messaging infrastructure was based on Microsoft SQL server's Message Broker. It's been a complete disaster. It's a black hole that can't be diagnosed or supported in terms of troubleshooting from Microsoft when it doesn't work. When it doesn't work, it just doesn't work and no one can answer why. That is very bad. The intended use of it was for enterprise messaging. However, that is not a use case for MSSQL Message Broker, period. We're in the process of moving in a couple of directions. We're going to move to Azure Service Bus as an interim solution, as our current technical capabilities are very Microsoft-centric. Then, the next step will be to move to other more enterprise-class messaging and queuing subsystems like RabbitMQ.

The SQL server as an engine probably deserves a very high nine out of ten. It's a very, very efficient relational database management system. And it is very scalable.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Microsoft Azure
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
reviewer1473555 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Tech Business Analyst, Group Data Projects & Ventures at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Stable, flexible, and scalable
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution seems to be pretty flexible."
  • "Due to the fact that I'm dealing with the product more as a data analyst, the SQL Server management studio is really relatively primitive compared to other more advanced tools."

What is our primary use case?

Currently, I'm moving to another set of projects. One is for a small company that supports a client and is building on a different surface on the SQL server. The cloud that is used is essentially Amazon AWS.

What is most valuable?

SQL SSIS is the most useful aspect of the solution.

We find the product to be relatively stable.

The solution seems to be pretty flexible.

What needs improvement?

Due to the fact that I'm dealing with the product more as a data analyst, the SQL Server management studio is really relatively primitive compared to other more advanced tools. There are other tools on the market that are much more advanced. It would be better if they managed to give us a bit more of a user-friendly product with just a bit more meat on the bone. It's a bit basic.

There are a number of features that are lacking. Just recently I had to do something and it's not available on the SQL Server. However, it's available on another solution that's actually a much cheaper product. 

Some areas need improvement. For example, how you deal with the manipulation of data is probably not the best.

For how long have I used the solution?

While I haven't constantly used the product all of the time, overall, I've used it for over 10 years at this point. I have quite a few years of experience with it.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is quite stable. It doesn't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In general, the solution is scalable. Microsoft, compared to the others, tends to focus more on the programming ability of the solution rather than the user experience. Rather than making it more user-friendly, they tend to make it more program-friendly.

We have about 70 users on the solution currently.

It's my understanding that the client is planning to scale up to be able to take on more customers in the near future. They may therefore increase usage.

How are customer service and technical support?

Mostly, I personally am on the analytics and new project development side of things in our organization. Therefore, I typically don't deal with technical support. I can't speak to how supportive, knowledgeable, or responsive they are. 

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I typically use SQL wherever I go, however, I don't necessarily use Microsoft all the time. I also occasionally use a solution called Teradata.

How was the initial setup?

I was not involved in the installation of the solution. I'm more on the side of creating metadata. Therefore, it would be difficult for me to comment on if the solution was easy or difficult to implement or how our team deployed it. I don't have any exact details on that front.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

While there are costs involved in using the product, I'm not a part of the billing or payments team. I can't speak to how much the solution costs or how much our organization pays. I do not know if it's monthly or yearly and how long our contract is for, if we have one.

What other advice do I have?

I'm using the 2016 or 2017 version of the solution.

There are many SQL options. I'd only recommend this one if it made sense to the individual company and their requirements.

In general, I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
General Manager/MVP at Yotta Infrastructure Solutions LLP
Real User
Reliable, Stable, And Cost-effective Solution For A Small Database
Pros and Cons
  • "The features that we have found the most valuable are reliability, availability perspective, and current scalability."
  • "The scalability and the high availability feature can be expanded or improved. Currently, there is a limitation on scalability. A feature similar to the Oracle Diagnostic feature can be included to provide a better user experience."

What is our primary use case?

We use on-premises, standalone deployment of SQL Server for our own CRM database. There are around seven to eight users in our company. 

How has it helped my organization?

SQL Server suffices our main requirement of a small database, and it is also very cost-effective.

What is most valuable?

The features that we have found the most valuable are reliability, availability perspective, and current scalability. 

What needs improvement?

The scalability and the high availability feature can be expanded or improved. Currently, there is a limitation on scalability. 

A feature similar to the Oracle Diagnostic feature can be included to provide a better user experience. 

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using SQL Server for around 10 years. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Stability and scalability are both good. It suffices for our current requirements, but if we want to scale up in the future, it has limitations.

How are customer service and technical support?

We sometimes contacted Microsoft technical support, and we also have in-house Microsoft support. We are happy with the support.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was straightforward. 

What about the implementation team?

Our in-house team handled the deployment. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

SQL Server is a cost-effective solution for a small database. 

What other advice do I have?

I would definitely recommend SQL Server. 

I would rate SQL Server an eight out of ten. 

Not a ten because it has some limitations. When considering overall scalability, reliability, features, if you look at Oracle, it's still ahead of SQL Server.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
PeerSpot user
PeerSpot user
CEO/CTO at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Consultant
A useful feature is the ability to write and execute SQL on the fly

What is most valuable?

Probably the most useful feature of SQL Server is the ability to write and execute SQL on the fly.

Even though there are some very useful features on Oracle, MySQL, and other platforms, the SQL Server by far has the most robust capabilities of any database platform.

In my experience with numerous coding languages and platforms, the SQL Server has the only programming language that allows the user to create, compile, and execute code in its own language.

To clarify, Java, .NET, PL/SQL and all other programming languages can dynamically create code, but not their own. In other words, Java can dynamically create SQL and execute it, but it cannot create Java and compile/execute.

Other great features are:

  • Passing tables as parameters
  • Table valued functions
  • Horizontal table partitioning
  • Very granular disk partitioning

How has it helped my organization?

The most recent example is a data warehouse I've created for a client that enables us to use a "no-SQL" construct. This is only possible due to the dynamic SQL capability.

Our client collects data from dozens of sources with little to no commonality between them. With other platforms, this would require a table for each data source. However, because of the dynamic SQL, we have three tables that will accommodate ANY data source and it will never require us to change the data warehouse schema.

As a result, maintenance is virtually zero.

What needs improvement?

The only real improvement I've been looking for is finally being addressed by Microsoft.

Since SQL Server only ran on Windows, it was not competitive with other platforms which could run on Linux. This has recently been realized with the release of SQL Server for Linux. I currently have the pre-release version and I'm very impressed with what they have so far.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using SQL Server for 17 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We did not encounter any issues with stability. None at all.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We did not encounter any issues with scalability. I have been able to create databases with billions of records with no degradation in performance. The partitioning has been a critical feature in enabling scalability.

How are customer service and technical support?

In my experience with their support, I would rate it as outstanding. Their techs are professional and extremely helpful.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I typically use whatever database platform my client uses. However, whenever I am provided with the option to choose, I will always go with SQL Server.

How was the initial setup?

In older versions, the setup was rather onerous. However, in the latest several releases, it has been extremely simple to install and set up.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Do the research and get the correct licensing model for your given purpose. A lot of people gravitate toward the Open Source databases because they don't have an upfront cost.

I find that what you don't pay upfront is what you have to invest in development and maintenance time on implementation. On far too many occasions, I have spent weeks writing code for features that SQL Server already has built in.

Either pay for the licensing cost or pay multiple times that for the labor involved in creating features, from scratch, that are native to products like SQL Server and Oracle.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have a good deal of knowledge on SQL Server, and Oracle, MySQL. I have some familiarity with DB2 and PostgreSQL. The database platform chosen will ultimately depend on the needs of the client.

What other advice do I have?

Look very closely at the built-in features. For those features that you may need, estimate what it would take to replicate that same functionality on the "free" products.

The comparison is not on the licensing cost. It's on the features and the license cost versus the labor cost.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Download our free SQL Server Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
Updated: March 2025
Product Categories
Relational Databases Tools
Buyer's Guide
Download our free SQL Server Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.