Cassandra vs. ScyllaDB
A side-by-side comparison based on G2 review data.
| Metric | Cassandra | ScyllaDB |
|---|---|---|
| Overall rating | 4.1 | 4.5 |
| Review count | 35 | 429 |
| Ease of use | 8.1 | 8.8 |
| Ease of setup | 8.5 | 8.5 |
| Quality of support | 7.9 | 8.8 |
| Meets requirements | 8.6 | 9.0 |
| NPS | 33.333333 | 67.058824 |
| Small Business | 17.1% | 41.7% |
| Mid-Market | 34.3% | 29.6% |
| Enterprise | 48.6% | 28.7% |
| Total page views | 79 | 1,114 |
| Total LLM citations | 136 | 3,096 |
Cassandra
Cassandra's data model offers the convenience of column indexes with the performance of log-structured updates, strong support for denormalization and materialized views, and powerful built-in caching.
ScyllaDB
ScyllaDB is a specialty database for workloads that require predictable performance at scale. It’s adopted by organizations that require ultra-low latency, even at millions of features or operations per second, billions of embeddings, or petabytes of storage. ScyllaDB’s shard-per-core architecture taps the full power of modern infrastructure, translating to fewer nodes, less admin, and lower costs. Over 400 companies such as Disney+, Discord, Tripadvisor, Expedia, Zillow, Starbucks, and Comcast use ScyllaDB for their toughest database challenges.
- Performance
- Speed
- Scalability
- Low Latency
- Ease of Use
- Querying