Compare Cassandra and ScyllaDB 
- Users report that ScyllaDB excels in scalability with a score of 9.2, allowing for seamless handling of large datasets, while Cassandra's scalability score is slightly lower at 9.0, indicating it may not perform as well under extreme loads.
- Reviewers mention that ScyllaDB's ease of use is a standout feature, scoring 8.6 compared to Cassandra's 7.8, which suggests that new users may find ScyllaDB more intuitive and user-friendly.
- G2 users highlight the superior quality of support provided by ScyllaDB, with a score of 8.3, while Cassandra's support quality is rated at 7.5, indicating that users may have a better experience resolving issues with ScyllaDB.
- Users on G2 report that ScyllaDB offers advanced data analytics capabilities with a score of 8.5, whereas Cassandra's data analytics features are rated at 8.1, suggesting that ScyllaDB may provide more robust tools for data analysis.
- Reviewers say that ScyllaDB's auto recovery feature is rated at 8.0, which is on par with Cassandra, but ScyllaDB's overall availability score of 8.8 is slightly better than Cassandra's 8.9, indicating a more reliable performance in real-world scenarios.
- Users report that ScyllaDB's query language support is rated at 8.0, which is higher than Cassandra's 6.6, suggesting that users may find it easier to execute complex queries in ScyllaDB.
Cassandra runs in a single daemon; there is no complex set of configuration, locking, and other services to get it running. The support for using x.509 certificates and TLS for cluster communication is cloud-friendly (because it doesn't require constant...
Poor performance (suffering from JVM usage), needs a large node count to handle writes (it does not fit well with fewer nodes using larger machines).
We have been using Scylladb as a primary db for one of our services. There is seemless transition from casandaradb. Apart from these it satisfies scalabiliy, reliability constraints which is required for high throughput services like ours. The documentation...
The pricing, the pricing, the pricing! Open is missing too many features for us to make it viable, the paid tier is just too much cost to justify. Used at my previous company, my current won't consider because of this. Lower requirements than some others.
Cassandra runs in a single daemon; there is no complex set of configuration, locking, and other services to get it running. The support for using x.509 certificates and TLS for cluster communication is cloud-friendly (because it doesn't require constant...
We have been using Scylladb as a primary db for one of our services. There is seemless transition from casandaradb. Apart from these it satisfies scalabiliy, reliability constraints which is required for high throughput services like ours. The documentation...
Poor performance (suffering from JVM usage), needs a large node count to handle writes (it does not fit well with fewer nodes using larger machines).
The pricing, the pricing, the pricing! Open is missing too many features for us to make it viable, the paid tier is just too much cost to justify. Used at my previous company, my current won't consider because of this. Lower requirements than some others.
