A practical comparison of the Postgres MCP servers worth running in 2026 — Postgres MCP Pro, Supabase, Google MCP Toolbox, AWS, DBHub, and Bytebase. We look at vendor lock-in, database scope, access model, and governance to help you pick the right one.

Bytebase vs. CyberArk: the database vertical in your PAM stack

PAM tools gate the database connection. Databases also need SQL review, a schema change workflow, and per-statement approval. Here is where PAM stops and why most teams run it alongside Bytebase.

Bytebase vs. PAM: Why Database Teams Need More Than Privileged Access Management

A side-by-side look at Bytebase and Atlas for database schema migration: how each one approaches migrations, their CI/CD and access control, supported databases, and what they cost. Updated for Atlas v1.1 and Bytebase 3.16.

Bytebase vs. Atlas: a side-by-side comparison for database schema migration

Convex and Supabase are both backend-in-a-box platforms, but built on different foundations. This post compares their architecture, real-time model, data model, schema management, and pricing to help you decide.

Convex vs Supabase: Which Backend Platform Should You Choose?

Compare Snowflake Dynamic Data Masking with database views and Bytebase fleet-wide masking on edition gate, policy management, and audit trail.

Snowflake Dynamic Data Masking (DDM) and Alternatives

Supabase and MongoDB take different paths to storing application data. This article compares them on data model, architecture, performance, pricing, and licensing to help you decide which one fits.

Supabase vs. MongoDB: a Complete Comparison in 2026

DataGrip is a SQL IDE built for individual developers; Bytebase is a web platform built for teams that need review and governance. This post compares their database support, features, and pricing to help you decide which fits.

Bytebase vs. DataGrip: a side-by-side comparison for database management

Supabase pricing starts free. We break down real costs for Pro ($25/mo) and Team ($599/mo) plans, explain overages, and compare each service head-to-head with AWS.

Supabase vs AWS: Feature and Pricing Comparison (2026)

Is Supabase free? Compare Supabase pricing vs AWS RDS and Aurora across free tier, Pro, and production plans. Includes Supabase free tier limits, storage costs, and compute pricing for 2026.

Supabase Pricing vs AWS RDS: Is Supabase Free? Full Cost Comparison (2026)

Evaluate Prisma and TypeORM, and help you to choose the right TypeScript ORM for 2025

Prisma vs TypeORM: The Better TypeScript ORM in 2025

An extensive comparison between DynamoDB and Cassandra on performance, usability, operability, ecosystem and more.

DynamoDB vs. Cassandra: a Complete Comparison in 2025

An extensive comparison between DynamoDB and MongoDB on performance, usability, operability, ecosystem and more.

RDS vs. DynamoDB: a Complete Comparison in 2025

How gh-ost and pt-online-schema-change compare on architecture, cut-over, foreign keys, and runtime control — for teams choosing a MySQL online schema migration tool.

gh-ost vs pt-online-schema-change

GitHub and Bitbucket are both tools for code collaboration. This article compares the features and pricing of GitHub and Bitbucket.

GitHub vs Bitbucket:a Complete Comparison in 2025

Drizzle ORM vs Prisma comparison: type safety, performance, bundle size, serverless support, migrations, and ecosystem. Find out which TypeScript ORM is right for your project in 2026.

Drizzle ORM vs Prisma: Which TypeScript ORM Should You Use in 2026?

An engineering perspective to evaluate Google AlloyDB and Cloud SQL, and help you to choose the right Google Cloud database for 2025

AlloyDB vs. Cloud SQL: engineering guide to choose the right Google Cloud database for 2025

A simple comparison of AWS Aurora versus RDS pricing in 2025, helping you understand key differences and choose the right database service for your needs and budget.

AWS Aurora vs. RDS Pricing: A Detailed Comparison 2025

An extensive comparison between GitLab CI and GitHub Actions on features, performance, and more.

GitLab CI vs. GitHub Actions: a Complete Comparison in 2025

An extensive comparison between Oracle and PostgreSQL on data model, query language, scalability, performance, and more.

Oracle vs. PostgreSQL: a Complete Comparison in 2025

An extensive comparison between MongoDB and MySQL on data model, query language, scalability, performance, and more.

MongoDB vs MySQL: a Complete Comparison in 2025

An extensive comparison between MongoDB and Redis on performance, usability, operability, ecosystem and more.

MongoDB vs Redis: a Complete Comparison in 2025

DynamoDB and PostgreSQL are both popular databases, but they are different. This post compares them based on their key differences, strengths, and ideal use cases.

DynamoDB vs PostgreSQL: A Concise Comparison

Supabase vs. Firebase compared across database, auth, real-time, serverless functions, AI, local dev, self-hosting, and pricing — updated for 2026 with Firebase Data Connect, Supabase Branching, and the latest product shifts.

Supabase vs. Firebase: a Complete Comparison in 2026

An extensive comparison between Snowflake and Redshift on features, architecture, development workflow, operability, pricing and more.

Snowflake vs. Redshift: a Complete Comparison in 2025

DynamoDB vs MongoDB: compare AWS DynamoDB and MongoDB on data model, query capabilities, scalability, pricing, global distribution, and security. Includes use case recommendations and real-world examples.

DynamoDB vs MongoDB: Which NoSQL Database Should You Choose? (2026)

A Strategic Comparison Between DevOps and Platform Engineering

Platform Engineering vs. DevOps: A Strategic Comparison in 2025

An extensive comparison between CockroachDB and PostgreSQL on license, architecture, performance, scalability, compatibility, deployment options.

CockroachDB vs. Postgres: a Complete Comparison in 2025

An extensive comparison between TiDB and MySQL on license, architecture, performance, scalability, online ddl, compatibility, deployment options.

TiDB vs. MySQL: a Complete Comparison in 2025

DevOps and DevSecOps are methodologies aimed at improving software development and delivery, but they differ in their focus and integration of security.

DevOps vs. DevSecOps: What's the Difference

MySQL vs SQL Server: compare features, performance, pricing, AI capabilities, cloud pricing, and use cases. Updated for MySQL 9.2 and SQL Server 2025 with detailed licensing and TCO analysis.

MySQL vs SQL Server: Key Differences and Which to Choose (2026)

An extensive comparison between PostgreSQL 18 and SQL Server 2025 — features, architecture, query optimization, development workflow, pricing, and a decision framework for picking the right one in 2026.

Postgres vs. SQL Server: a Complete Comparison in 2026

An extensive comparison between pgAdmin and DBeaver on features, user experience, database support, extensibility, performance, and more.

pgAdmin vs. DBeaver: a Complete Comparison in 2025

An extensive comparison between TiDB and CockroachDB on license, architecture, compatibility, scalability

TiDB vs. CockroachDB: the Distributed Clash between MySQL and PostgreSQL

Bytebase vs StrongDM in 2026: a side-by-side comparison for database just-in-time (JIT) access control, covering permission models, SQL review, data masking, approval flow, audit log, and pricing.

Bytebase vs. StrongDM: a side-by-side comparison for database access control and JIT

An extensive comparison between GitHub and GitLab on history, deployment model, tech stack, repository management, code review, code search, ci/cd, security, project management, ai, pricing

GitHub vs. GitLab: a Complete Comparison in 2025

While MariaDB was initially a fork of MySQL, the two have evolved over time. This post will explore a detailed comparison between MySQL and MariaDB, focusing on key aspects such as performance, licensing, compatibility, and feature set

MySQL vs. MariaDB: a Complete Comparison in 2025

Neon and Supabase are the 2 new generation Postgres service providers. This is an extensive comparison between Neon and Supabase on architecture, compatibility, agentic workload, developer workflow, scalability, integration, compliance, pricing and more.

Neon vs. Supabase: Which One Should I Choose

Compare Flyway vs Liquibase side-by-side: features, pricing, supported databases, SQL auto check, rollback, and schema drift detection. Updated for Flyway 2026 and Liquibase 5.0.

Flyway vs. Liquibase: The Definitive Comparison in 2026

Bytebase vs. CloudBeaver compared across product scope, supported databases, change review, access control, data masking, and pricing. Updated for Bytebase 3.16 and CloudBeaver 25.

Bytebase vs. CloudBeaver: a side-by-side comparison for web-based database management

Bytebase vs Metabase in 2026: a side-by-side comparison of database tooling for developer teams and data teams, covering pricing, features, SQL Review, change workflow, and BI.

Bytebase vs. Metabase: a side-by-side comparison for developer and data teams

Bytebase vs. DBeaver compared across product scope, supported databases, change workflow, access control, data masking, and pricing. Updated for Bytebase 3.16 and DBeaver 25.

Bytebase vs. DBeaver: a side-by-side comparison for database management

An engineering perspective to evaluate Amazon Aurora and RDS, and help you to choose the right AWS database for 2025

Aurora vs. RDS: engineering guide to choose the right AWS database for 2025

An extensive comparison between Postgres and MongoDB on performance, reliability, scalability, usability, operability, ecosystem and more.

Postgres vs. MongoDB: a Complete Comparison in 2025

PostgreSQL vs MySQL: in-depth comparison of performance, features, security, extensibility, JSON support, replication, and ecosystem. Updated for Postgres 18 and MySQL 9.x with real-world scaling references.

PostgreSQL vs MySQL: Which Database Should You Choose in 2026?

An extensive comparison between PlanetScale and Neon on architecture, compatibility, developer workflow, scalability, operability, integration, compliance, pricing and more.

PlanetScale vs. Neon: the Continued Saga between MySQL and PostgreSQL

Bytebase vs. Flyway compared across migration workflow, SQL review, access control, pricing, and CI/CD. Updated for Flyway Desktop and Bytebase 3.16.

Bytebase vs. Flyway: a side-by-side comparison for database schema migration

Bytebase vs. Liquibase compared across migration workflow, SQL review, access control, pricing, and CI/CD. Updated for Liquibase 5.0 Secure and Bytebase 3.16.

Bytebase vs. Liquibase: a side-by-side comparison for database schema migration

When evaluating database management tools, Navicat and Bytebase represent two different philosophies: individual desktop productivity versus team collaboration and governance.

Bytebase vs. Navicat: a side-by-side comparison for database management


<HintBlock type="info">

This post is maintained by Bytebase, an open-source database DevSecOps tool that can manage both Aurora and RDS. We update the post every year.

</HintBlock>

| Update History | Comment            |
| -------------- | ------------------ |
| 2024/01/22     | Initial version.   |
| 2025/04/27     | Added Aurora DSQL. |

![gartner](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/gartner-2024.webp)

Once again, AWS is ranked among the top in the latest Gartner 2024 Magic Quadrant for Cloud Database Management Systems.
The AWS OLTP relational database portfolio consists of 3 products:

- `Amazon RDS` (Relational Database Service) was announced by AWS on October 22, 2009 and probably
  is the largest database fleet in the world.

- `Amazon Aurora` was announced on November 12, 2014, positioned as RDS premium providing unparalleled high performance and availability at global scale with full MySQL and PostgreSQL compatibility.

- `Amazon Aurora DSQL` was announced in December 2024 at AWS re:Invent, offering a distributed SQL database with 99.999% multi-Region availability, strong consistency, PostgreSQL compatibility, and claims of 4x faster reads and writes compared to other distributed SQL databases.

When an engineering team onboards AWS, one of the very first tasks is to choose the right database solution for their needs (unless they decide to go NoSQL, then they need to pick between MongoDB, DynamoDB, and other options). Below we provide our engineering perspective to compare the following dimensions:

- [Supported Databases](#supported-databases)
- [Architecture](#architecture)
- [Compatibility](#compatibility)
- [Performance](#performance)
- [Elasticity](#elasticity)
- [High Availability](#high-availability)
- [Pricing](#pricing)
- [Recommended Setup](#recommended-setup)
- [Further Readings](#further-readings)

## Supported Databases

![databases](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/databases.webp)

RDS supports all mainstream relational databases including MySQL, PostgreSQL, MariaDB, SQL Server, Oracle, and Db2, with Extended Support for older versions. As of 2025, RDS maintains major versions of these engines.

Aurora supports MySQL and PostgreSQL. The service has maintained its focus on these two popular open-source database engines, optimizing their performance in the cloud environment.

![databases](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/upstream-version.webp)

Aurora DSQL, the newest addition to AWS's database portfolio, currently supports PostgreSQL compatibility.

RDS offers all upstream versions, but some are nearing end-of-support, such as PostgreSQL 12 (end date: Feb 28, 2025) and MySQL versions 8.0.32-8.0.36 (end date: Mar 31, 2025). Extended Support is available for up to 3 years at additional cost, starting March 1, 2024.

Aurora versions include MySQL 3.08.2 (compatible with MySQL 8.0.39) and PostgreSQL 16.4, with new features like fast failover. Aurora DSQL focuses on PostgreSQL compatibility and distributed workloads with strong consistency across regions.

## Architecture

RDS mostly runs the vanilla database engines on the cloud. While Aurora is a **cloud-native** database service.
Aurora is cloud-native because it leverages the cloud environment to separate compute and storage, uses [Amazon S3](https://aws.amazon.com/s3/) to persist data. This novel approach increase performance, high availability, and scalability.

![aurora-arch](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/aurora-arch.webp)

Aurora DSQL builds on this with a distributed, multi-region design, enabling active-active architecture for global operations. It ensures consistency through **decoupled transaction processing** and **microsecond-accurate time synchronization**, ideal for globally distributed, highly available applications.

![aurora-dsql-arch](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/aurora-dsql-arch.webp)

## Compatibility

Both Aurora and RDS bear the same limitation as a Cloud database:

- You can only have [semi-super user](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/UsingWithRDS.MasterAccounts.html).
- You are not allowed to access the database server file systems. For MySQL, this means
  you can only use `LOAD DATA LOCAL` to import data from your local file system, while you can't use `LOAD DATA` to import from the server
  file system.

Though Aurora is a proprietary technology, it mostly differs from the vanilla MySQL / PostgreSQL on the storage engine layer.
On the other hand, the server layer, which determines most user-facing behaviors is almost identical. Thus the main compatibility gaps for Aurora is storage engine related. e.g. Aurora for MySQL only supports InnoDB, while RDS supports old engines such as MyISAM (however, you won't use MyISAM engine anyway if you start a new project).

Saying that, Aurora codebase diverges more from the vanilla MySQL/Postgres than RDS, thus you should expect more lags for the AWS team to bring in the latest upstream update. e.g. Aurora PostgreSQL added the popular pgvector extension 2 months later than RDS.

![pgvector-rds](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/pgvector-rds.webp)
![pgvector-aurora](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/pgvector-aurora.webp)

For Aurora DSQL, as a newer service, the extension ecosystem is still developing. While it maintains core PostgreSQL compatibility, not all extensions available in standard PostgreSQL or Aurora PostgreSQL are currently supported in Aurora DSQL. AWS has indicated plans to expand extension support based on customer demand.

## Performance

According to [the official website](https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/features/), Aurora offers up to 5x the throughput of MySQL and 3x the throughput of PostgreSQL.

This [benchmark](https://dev.to/aws-heroes/amazon-aurora-is-now-60-times-faster-than-rds-for-mysql-really-3c0e) suggesting Aurora can be 60 times faster than RDS.

Aurora provides better write performance because it reduces the write amplification by only sending the redo log to the remote storage service, which eliminates other writes during transaction commit path such as the infamous double-write buffer.

Aurora provides better read scalability because of the log-based architecture, it can support up to 15 read-replicas. RDS can only support 5, RDS doesn't support more because the classic streaming replication carries more performance penalty on the primary. Aurora also incurs much lower replication lags, especially under write-heavy load.

Aurora DSQL takes performance to a new level for distributed workloads. According to AWS, Aurora DSQL delivers 4x faster reads and writes compared to other popular distributed SQL databases. This is achieved through its innovative approach to transaction processing that parallelizes writes across regions and its use of the Amazon Time Sync Service for precise operation ordering.

RDS uses EBS, the disk performance differs based on the [storage types](https://docs.aws.amazon.com//AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_Storage.html). Since 2023, AWS has continued to improve the underlying EBS performance, but the architectural differences still give Aurora and Aurora DSQL significant advantages for most workload types.

In general, Aurora outperforms RDS considerably, and Aurora DSQL offers even greater performance for distributed workloads. But you still need to benchmark for your own specific use cases to determine the best fit.

## Elasticity

![gp2-burst](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/gp2-burst.webp)

RDS doesn't have much elasticity, if you choose the gp2 SSD storage, it can be [bursted](https://docs.aws.amazon.com//AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_Storage.html) and that's pretty much it.

Standard Aurora can provision read-replicas quickly, other than that, it doesn't provide elasticity out of the box. However, Aurora's architecture does allow for faster storage scaling compared to RDS.

Aurora Serverless and especially its [Serverless v2](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-serverless-v2.html) offers great elasticity to scale up/down computing resources. Great for workloads such as e-commerce. In 2025, AWS announced [Serverless Reservations](https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2025/04/serverless-reservations-discounted-pricing-option-amazon-redshift-serverless/), a new discounted pricing option for serverless database services, making Aurora Serverless even more cost-effective for predictable workloads with variable capacity needs.

Aurora DSQL takes elasticity to a new level with its distributed architecture. It automatically scales to meet any workload demand without database sharding or instance upgrades, and can scale reads and writes independently, eliminating scaling bottlenecks while maintaining performance. This makes Aurora DSQL particularly well-suited for applications with unpredictable global traffic patterns or those requiring rapid scaling across regions.

## High Availability

![ha](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/ha.webp)

RDS offers multi-AZ HA setup with a SLA of `up to 99.95%`, while Aurora HA offers `up to 99.99%`. Aurora can failover faster because of its log-based architecture. And for write-intensive load, RDS failover are more problematic because of the high replication lag.

Aurora also has [global databases](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-global-database.html) to enable low latency global reads and disaster recovery from outages across an AWS Region.

Aurora DSQL takes high availability to a new level with its 99.999% multi-Region availability (five nines). Its active-active architecture and automated failure recovery ensure that applications can always read and write to any Aurora DSQL endpoint, even during regional outages. All transactions written in one Region are reflected in other Regions with strong consistency, eliminating the traditional trade-offs between availability and consistency.

In 2024, AWS also enhanced Amazon DynamoDB global tables with multi-Region strong consistency, using the same underlying technology leveraged by Aurora DSQL. This indicates AWS's strategic focus on providing strongly consistent, highly available database services across its portfolio.

## Pricing

![pricing-rds-aurora](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/pricing-rds-aurora.webp)

If you follow the AWS wizard to pick the production template (8c64g r6g.2xlarge + multi-AZ HA), you will find the price
for Aurora is much cheaper than RDS. Too good to be true.

![pricing-aurora-notes](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/pricing-aurora-notes.webp)

The caveat is Aurora also charges on I/O that is not included in the pricing estimate. This surprised quite a few
customers when they receive a huge AWS bill. This unpredictable cost was the biggest concern for teams adopting
Aurora initially. In 2023, Aurora fixed this by introducing Aurora I/O-Optimized to include the I/O cost in the storage, and this pricing model has continued to be refined through 2025.

![pricing-aurora-io-optimized](/content/blog/aurora-vs-rds/pricing-aurora-io-optimized.webp)

In 2025, AWS introduced Serverless Reservations, a new discounted pricing option for serverless database services including Aurora Serverless. This provides cost savings for customers who can commit to a minimum level of usage while still maintaining the flexibility of serverless scaling.

For RDS, starting March 2024, Extended Support fees apply (5%–20% over three years) for outdated database versions, making version planning critical.

Aurora DSQL, while more expensive, can be cost-effective for multi-region, strongly consistent applications compared to building custom solutions.

Besides, only RDS offers free-tier and low db instance tiers starting from 2c1g t3.micro. Standard Aurora
starts from 2c16g r5.large and burstable classes start from 2c4g t3.medium. Aurora Serverless can specify
0.5 ACU as the minimum. 1 ACU provides 2 GiB of memory and corresponding compute and networking.

You should use [AWS Pricing Calculator](https://calculator.aws/) and it's also a good idea to monitor your
database cost by using a specialized tool such as [Vantage](https://www.vantage.sh/).

## Recommended Setup

Capability-wise, AWS Aurora beats RDS in almost every aspect, and Aurora DSQL now extends these capabilities even further for distributed applications. AWS continues to invest more resources in Aurora and Aurora DSQL than in RDS since these services are key differentiators from other cloud vendors. Though Aurora is mostly MySQL / PostgreSQL compatible, it creates a different vendor lock-in by providing unmatched ROI. Aurora DSQL adds another layer of capability for applications requiring global distribution with strong consistency.

For bootstrapped or small business, Aurora is still pricy and RDS is a cost-effective solution:

| Startup       | Choice         |
| ------------- | -------------- |
| Test Instance | RDS without HA |
| Prod Instance | RDS with HA    |

For growth stage business, Aurora is more suitable, and Aurora Serverless offers the extra flexibility
to optimize the cost.

| Growth                               | Choice                       |
| ------------------------------------ | ---------------------------- |
| Always-on Test Instance              | Standard Aurora without HA   |
| On-demand Test Instance              | Aurora Serverless without HA |
| Prod Instance                        | Standard Aurora with HA      |
| Prod Instance with fluctuate traffic | Aurora Serverless with HA    |

For enterprise businesses with global applications requiring the highest levels of availability and consistency, Aurora DSQL provides capabilities that were previously difficult to achieve:

| Enterprise                                           | Choice      |
| ---------------------------------------------------- | ----------- |
| Global applications                                  | Aurora DSQL |
| Multi-region applications with high write throughput | Aurora DSQL |

Normally, you should start with RDS and migrate to Aurora when the business takes off, and consider Aurora DSQL when your application requires global distribution with strong consistency. AWS provides [detailed guide](https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/hands-on/migrate-rdsmysql-to-auroramysql/) on how to migrate from RDS to Aurora with near zero downtime, and similar migration paths are available from Aurora to Aurora DSQL.

---

After you decide the database product, there remains task to figure out the database
development workflow:

- How developers propagate the change from dev to production?
- How to get the SQL change peer-reviewed by the DB person in an efficient manner? Or even better with automated SQL checks?
- How to enforce data access policy for PII compliance?

If you are thinking about these problems, please check out Bytebase. It's an [all-in-one tool](/blog/all-database-tools-bytebase-replaces) to centralize all human-to-db operations for heterogeneous databases.

![change-query-secure-govern-database-all-in-one](/content/blog/_shared/db-scheme-lg.png)

## Further Readings

- [Postgres vs. MySQL: a Complete Comparison](/blog/postgres-vs-mysql)
- [Amazon Aurora ascendant: How we designed a cloud-native relational database](https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2019/03/amazon-aurora-design-cloud-native-relational-database.html)
- [Amazon database master user account privileges](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/UsingWithRDS.MasterAccounts.html)
- [Amazon Aurora features](https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/features/)
- [Amazon Aurora pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/pricing/)
- [Amazon Aurora DSQL: The fastest distributed SQL database](https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/dsql/)
- [Using Aurora Serverless v2](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-serverless-v2.html)
- [High availability for Amazon Aurora](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/Concepts.AuroraHighAvailability.html)
- [Amazon RDS features](https://aws.amazon.com/rds/features/)
- [Amazon RDS pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/rds/pricing/)
- [Amazon RDS Extended Support](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/extended-support.html)
- [Amazon RDS DB instance storage](https://docs.aws.amazon.com//AmazonRDS/latest/UserGuide/CHAP_Storage.html)
- [AWS Serverless Reservations pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/database/?whats-new-content.sort-by=item.additionalFields.postDateTime&whats-new-content.sort-order=desc&awsf.whats-new-products=*all)



<HintBlock type="info">

This post is maintained by Bytebase, an open-source database DevSecOps tool that can manage both Postgres and MongoDB. We update the post every year.

</HintBlock>

| Update History | Comment           |
| -------------- | ----------------- |
| 2024/01/14     | Initial version.  |
| 2025/02/27     | Added AI section. |

> For the impatience, jump to the [last section](#postgres-or-mongodb) to see the comparison table.

## Why Comparing Postgres and MongoDB

Postgres is the most admired, desired database in the last 2 Stack Overflow surveys ([2024](https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2024/technology/#1-databases), [2023](https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2023/#most-popular-technologies-database).

![stackoverflow](/content/blog/postgres-vs-mongodb/stackoverflow.webp)

ICYDK, MongoDB used to hold that title for 4 consecutive years from 2017 to 2020. And according to DB-Engines, Postgres and MongoDB are among the top 5 databases. They are the two climbling the ladder and eating the shares of the big three, Oracle, MySQL, and Microsoft SQL Server.

![db-engines](/content/blog/postgres-vs-mongodb/db-engines.webp)

MongoDB is widely perceived as a NoSQL database which is opposite to the SQL database clan including Postgres.
But in recent years, they are converging:

- MongoDB becomes more like a traditional RDBMS, adding multi-document ACID transaction, secondary-index, advanced
  query capabilities.
- Postgres keeps improving its JSON capabilities such as indexing, query optimization, and more operators, which makes people wonder whether MongoDB becomes obsolete.

![hn](/content/blog/postgres-vs-mongodb/hn.webp)

In 2018, folks at The Guardian wrote a [lengthy post](https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/nov/30/bye-bye-mongo-hello-postgres) about migrating MongoDB to Postgres. A lot of things have changed since
then, but one thing still holds true, it's always painful to migrate databases.

![hn](/content/blog/postgres-vs-mongodb/byebye-mongo.webp)

At Bytebase, we work with both databases extensively since the Bytebase product needs to integrate
with both. Our founders also build [Google Cloud SQL](https://cloud.google.com/sql), one of the largest hosted database services.

Based on our operating experience, below we give an extensive comparison between Postgres and MongoDB
from the following dimensions:

- [License](#license)
- [Data Model](#data-model)
- [JSON Support](#json-support)
- [Performance](#performance)
- [Reliability](#reliability)
- [Scalability](#scalability)
- [Usability](#usability)
- [Operability](#operability)
- [Ecosystem](#ecosystem)
- [AI](#ai)

_Unless otherwise specified, the comparison below is between the latest major release, Postgres 15 vs. MongoDB 6. We also use Postgres instead of PostgreSQL throughout the article, though we know the latter is the official name, which is considered as [the biggest mistake in Postgres History](https://www.craigkerstiens.com/2018/10/30/postgres-biggest-mistake/)_.

## License

- Postgres is released under the PostgreSQL license which is a liberal Open Source license similar to
  the BSD or MIT licenses.

- MongoDB community edition is released under [Server Side Public License (SSPL)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License), a license created by MongoDB Inc. itself to prevent others from offering the competing
  MongoDB service. MongoDB Inc. also provides commercial licenses upon request.

Most companies use databases to support their internal infrastructure, both Postgres and MongoDB permit this usage.

## Data Model

Postgres is a relational database management system. It stores data in tables with predefined columns and data types. Relationships between tables are established using foreign keys.

MongoDB is a document-oriented database, which means that data is stored as documents in a collection.
Each document is a JSON-like structure that can contain nested fields and arrays. MongoDB is designed to handle unstructured and semi-structured data.

| Postgres (Tabular Model) | MongoDB (Document Model) |
| ------------------------ | ------------------------ |
| Database                 | Database                 |
| Schema                   | N/A                      |
| Table                    | Collection               |
| Row                      | Document                 |
| Column                   | Field                    |

Postgres also supports JSON column, so one can also use Postgres in the MongoDB way, defining table as:

```sql
CREATE TABLE my_collection (
   id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY,
   data JSONB
);
```

## JSON Support

Both MongoDB and Postgres are very capable of handling JSON. MongoDB stores JSON using its own invented [BSON](https://www.mongodb.com/docs/manual/reference/bson-types/), while Postgres uses a different JSONB format. For those interested, there is a [lengthy discussion](https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoagjFfJst%3D9kSu4rZatCE8SRuOQCH_h-_YW%3D4_c687GTA%40mail.gmail.com) around whether to choose BSON or JSONB in Postgres.

MongoDB has 2 advantages:

1. Built-in schema validator.
1. Its integration with the Node.js/frontend ecosystem. MongoDB is a favored choice among full-stack developers who commonly utilize Node.

## Performance

Performance is primarily determined by the access pattern. If an operation involves different entities, MongoDB is usually
faster because data is de-normalized and doesn't require costly joins between tables. On the other hand, Postgres
is more capable of handling complex queries thanks to SQL and its sophisticated query optimizer.

## Reliability

MongoDB was known to be less reliable because it didn't support ACID transaction semantics in the early days.
This has changed since they acquired WiredTiger and use its WiredTiger storage engine. Today, from the transaction perspective, MongoDB is as solid as Postgres.

MongoDB provides built-in automatic failover via its replica set. Postgres needs 3rd party solutions like [pg_auto_failover](https://github.com/hapostgres/pg_auto_failover).

## Scalability

MongoDB scales out, while Postgres scales up.

MongoDB is a distributed database supporting automatic sharding. For Postgres, people usually scale up the single node postgres first and defer the sharding solution as late as possible. Of course, sharding Postgres is doable:

- [Sharding & IDs at Instagram](https://instagram-engineering.com/sharding-ids-at-instagram-1cf5a71e5a5c)
- [Herding elephants: Lessons learned from sharding Postgres at Notion](https://www.notion.so/blog/sharding-postgres-at-notion)

## Usability

MongoDB doesn't enforce schema upfront and has an easy learning curve. Back in 2010, 10gen (the original name for the company that developed MongoDB) released the first version of the official MongoDB Node.js driver, which allowed developers to easily interact with MongoDB databases from Node.js applications. The driver provided a simple and intuitive API that supported a wide range of MongoDB features, including querying, indexing, and aggregation. Today, MongoDB
still is the de-facto choice for full-stack developers because of its ease of use.

Postgres, as a relational database, enforces schemas. And even among the relational database group, Postgres is
more rigorous than other peers like MySQL.

![stackoverflow](/content/blog/postgres-vs-mongodb/stackoverflow-learning.webp)

As the Stack Overflow survey shows, though Postgres is the most popular database among all respondents, MongoDB
is more welcomed by the new learners.

On the other hand, MQL (MongoDB Query Language) is less powerful than SQL in handling complex queries.

## Operability

Running a multi-node MongoDB is easier than running a multi-node Postgres, since sharding, failover
are already handled by MongoDB itself. On the other hand, if you run both databases on a single
node, then those distributed features in MongoDB become an overhead.

A variety of 3rd party vendors provide Postgres hosting service. MongoDB's license has prevented
3rd party from providing the MongoDB hosting service, and their own MongoDB Altas is more polished than
the equivalent Postgres hosting options. After all, it's hard for 3rd party to beat 1st party cloud service.

## Ecosystem

Postgres has an extensible architecture and is still maintained by the community. The Postgres ecosystem is
thriving in recent years, it has [a plethora of extensions](/blog/top-postgres-extension/) making
it more capable of handling different workloads than other databases. And thanks to its liberal license and
solid architecture, for every application platform offering a hosted database service, they all choose Postgres. From the [Heroku](https://www.heroku.com/) in the early days to the new [Supabase](https://supabase.com/), [render](https://render.com/), [Fly.io](https://fly.io/).

MongoDB, as the most successful commercial open source business by market cap, takes a more commercialized
approach. Whenever there emerges a good solution in the ecosystem, MongoDB Inc. would consider acquiring it
to make sure it becomes an integral part of the overall MongoDB product line. Notable acquisitions include:

- [WiredTiger](https://www.mongodb.com/press/wired-tige) for the storage engine.
- [mLab](https://www.mongodb.com/press/mongodb-strengthens-global-cloud-database-with-acquisition-of-mlab) for the hosting service.
- [Realm](https://www.mongodb.com/press/mongodb-strengthens-mobile-offerings-with-acquisition-of-realm) for the mobile offering.
- [Compass](https://www.mongodb.com/products/compass) for the MongoDB GUI client.

Though Postgres and MongoDB take polarized approach to cultivate the ecosystem, both are widely successful.

## AI

Postgres leverages [pgvector](https://github.com/pgvector/pgvector) extension for vector operations. MongoDB provide built-in [vector search](https://www.mongodb.com/products/platform/atlas-vector-search). MongoDB also [just acquired Voyage AI](https://www.mongodb.com/blog/post/redefining-database-ai-why-mongodb-acquired-voyage-ai) to tackle the hallucination problem of LLM.

![mongodb-voyage](/content/blog/postgres-vs-mongodb/mongodb-voyage.webp)

## Postgres or MongoDB

|              | Postgres                                                        | MongoDB                                                 |
| ------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
| License      | Postgres License (MIT alike)                                    | SSPL                                                    |
| Data Model   | Tabular, relational                                             | Document                                                |
| JSON Support | Capable and integrated with SQL                                 | Built-in schema validator                               |
| Performance  | Optimized for complex query                                     | Optimized for de-normalized data                        |
| Reliability  | Full ACID transaction support                                   | Transaction + built-in auto failover                    |
| Scalability  | Scale-up                                                        | Scale-out                                               |
| Usability    | Rigorous and powerful query capability                          | Relaxed enforcement and easy to start                   |
| Operability  | Optimized for single node and a wide range of hosting providers | Optimized for multi-node and a polished hosting service |
| Ecosystem    | Community driven, decentralized, vibrant                        | Business driven, centralized, integral                  |
| AI           | pgvector extension                                              | Built-in vector search                                  |

There are obvious domains where one database is more suitable than the other:

- Choose Postgres if your application has complex business logic and requires complex queries.
- Choose MongoDB if your application has a simple data model and handles web scale data.

Yet, the majority of application use cases fall between them and both databases are very capable:

- MongoDB as a document database, naturally provides 1st class JSON support. While Postgres also has the best
  JSON support among all open source relational databases.
- For full-stack developers, MongoDB used to be the go-to choice because of its excellent Node.js integration. While
  Postgres has been attracting them as every major 3rd party application platform offers managed Postgres service.
- For backend developers, MongoDB becomes appealing ever since it added transaction support. Who doesn't want
  to avoid [stressful schema change procedure](/blog/how-to-handle-database-schema-change) and enjoy faster iteration cycle?
- MongoDB Atlas has built one of the most polished hosted database services. While many 3rd party vendors, from large to small, all provide great Postgres hosting solutions.

Overall, Postgres is a more versatile database. It adopts relational model, provides comprehensive SQL capability, carries an extensible architecture, and is driven by an enthusiastic community.

MongoDB is a holistic database solution. It popularizes document model, provides built-in scaling and high availability, offers an integral developer experience, and is driven by a sharp-minded for-profit business entity.

If choosing between [Postgres and MySQL](/blog/postgres-vs-mysql) is hard, then choosing between Postgres and MongoDB is no easier. And as both databases are heading upward, the choice will only become harder 🤷‍♂️.

---

It's also common that Postgres and MongoDB co-exist inside an organization. And if you want to manage the database development
lifecycle for both of them, please check out [Bytebase](/).

![change-query-secure-govern-database-all-in-one](/content/blog/_shared/db-scheme-lg.png)

## Further Readings

- [Bye bye Mongo, Hello Postgres](https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/nov/30/bye-bye-mongo-hello-postgres)
- [Ask HN: Is MongoDB obsolote when Postgres and SQLite provide JSON types?](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30464075)
- [Proposal: Add JSON support for Postgres](https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e7e5fefd1003281348v6feb1730u7d43ccf011be6976%40mail.gmail.com)
- [Discussion for using BSON or JSONB for Postgres ](https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoagjFfJst%3D9kSu4rZatCE8SRuOQCH_h-_YW%3D4_c687GTA%40mail.gmail.com)
- [Sharding & IDs at Instagram](https://instagram-engineering.com/sharding-ids-at-instagram-1cf5a71e5a5c)
- [Herding elephants: Lessons learned from sharding Postgres at Notion](https://www.notion.so/blog/sharding-postgres-at-notion)
- [How to Handle Database Migration / Schema Change](/blog/how-to-handle-database-schema-change)

## Other Comparisons

- [Postgres vs. MySQL](/blog/postgres-vs-mysql)
- [MySQL vs. MariaDB](/blog/mysql-vs-mariadb)
- [PlanetScale vs. Neon](/blog/planetscale-vs-neon)
- [Neon vs. Supabase](/blog/neon-vs-supabase)



This is a series of articles between MySQL and PostgreSQL:

- [MySQL vs. Postgres](/blog/postgres-vs-mysql)
- PlanetScale vs. Neon (this one)
- [TiDB vs. CockroachDB](/blog/tidb-vs-cockroachdb)

---

<HintBlock type="info">

On May 14, 2025, Databricks has [announced](https://www.databricks.com/blog/databricks-neon) to acquire Neon.

</HintBlock>

The last 2 years Stack Overflow survey ([2024](https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2024/technology/#1-databases), [2023](https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2023/#most-popular-technologies-database) shows that PostgreSQL has taken
over the first place spot from MySQL and become the most admired, desired database.

![stackoverflow](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/stackoverflow.webp)

It seems that the love-hate relationship between MySQL and PostgreSQL will never end. From vanilla
MySQL vs. PostgreSQL, to distributed TiDB vs. CockroachDB, to cloud-native AWS Aurora vs. GCP AlloyDB, and now we
are entering the next chapter, the serverless, developer-oriented PlanetScale vs. Neon.

![planetscale](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/planetscale.webp)

![neon](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/neon.webp)

At Bytebase, we work with the MySQL / PostgreSQL ecosystems extensively. Our founders also build [Google Cloud SQL](https://cloud.google.com/sql), one of the largest hosted MySQL & Postgres cloud services.

Below we give an extensive comparison between PlanetScale and Neon from the following dimensions:

- [Architecture](#architecture)
- [Compatibility](#compatibility)
- [Developer Workflow](#developer-workflow)
- [Reliability](#reliability)
- [Scalability](#scalability)
- [Operability](#operability)
- [Integration](#integration)
- [Compliance](#compliance)
- [Open Source](#open-source)
- [Pricing](#pricing)
- [Funding](#funding)

## Architecture

PlanetScale is a distributed database based on [Vitess](https://vitess.io/). Vitess is a shared-nothing
architecture where each shard contains a MySQL primary node and set of replicas. VTGate proxy routes
the application request to the respective shard.

![vitess-arch](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/vitess-arch.webp)

Neon is a shared-storage architecture. It separates the compute and storage. The compute part is
just normal PostgreSQL server, the storage part is a custom-built multi-tenant storage system shared
by all Postgres compute nodes.

![neon-arch](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/neon-arch.webp)

## Compatibility

**[PlanetScale's MySQL compatibility](https://planetscale.com/docs/reference/mysql-compatibility) is constrained.**

1. [Underlying Vitess limitations](https://vitess.io/docs/15.0/reference/compatibility/mysql-compatibility/). Vitess shared-nothing architecture carries inherent compatibility limitations. Features requiring session maintenance or cross-shard coordination are challenging to implement.

1. Product trade-off. e.g. To support online DDL, PlanetScale disallows foreign keys entirely, which is more strict than Vitess' FK limitation.

1. Cloud operating model. No super privilege or LOAD DATA INFILE to access the host file system.

**Neon is [mostly compatible](https://neon.tech/docs/reference/compatibility) with vanilla PostgreSQL.**

Neon rebuilds the paging layer and just lightly changes the Postgres codebase. Neon's compatibility is only constrained by its cloud operating model, which are similar to other hosted database services (no superuser or host file system access).

## Developer Workflow

Both PlanetScale and Neon are targetting developers, and they are telling the same developer workflow story in different ways.

PlanetScale's story emphasizes the end-to-end experience, from branching, to schema migration, monitoring and revert.

![planetscale-workflow](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/planetscale-workflow.webp)

Neon's story highlights the single branching feature. Their purpose-built paging layer has copy-on-write (CoW), which makes branching instantaneous and cost-effective.

![neon-branch](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/neon-branch.webp)

## Reliability

Shared-nothing architecture is inherently fault-tolerant as data is sharded and replicated. Vitess
is a proven technology used by logos across the globe. PlanetScale has also proved its reliability
for not having notable outages for years.

![vitess-user](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/vitess-user.webp)

Shared-storage architecture requires more engineering effort to make the logical SPOF storage component
fault tolerant. Neon details the work in [its architecture decisions](https://neon.tech/blog/architecture-decisions-in-neon).

As a database trailblazing new architecture, Neon's advantage is it sits on a solid foundation.
PostgreSQL itself is rock solid and fully transactional. Neon's Pageserver approach also aligns
perfectly with the WAL-based logging in PostgreSQL. Neon is also able to use Rust, a more suitable
system language to implement its storage layer.

## Scalability

PlanetScale, as its name suggests, is planet-scale. The shared-nothing architecture grants near-linear
scalability [up to 1 million QPS](https://planetscale.com/blog/one-million-queries-per-second-with-mysql). The underlying Vitess is originally developed inside YouTube to handle scalability
challenges and it's been battle-tested in other large internet companies ([1](https://slack.engineering/scaling-datastores-at-slack-with-vitess/), [2](https://www.cncf.io/case-studies/jdcom-vitess/)).

Neon can not scale as much as PlanetScale. After all, it's a single-node PostgreSQL instance. But
this single node can scale up quite well. Neon separates the storage and compute, thus each can scale individually. And in the cloud, storage is infinite, compute is abundant, only the network bandwidth is constrained. The separated architecture also infers elasticity, scale-to-zero is as easy as scale-up.

## Operability

**PlanetScale provides a complete managed database solution. It tries to take care of [every aspect of using the
database](https://planetscale.com/blog/all-the-tech-planetscale-replaces).**

![planetscale-tech](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/planetscale-tech.webp)

- **Deploy requests** and **Branches** for database change workflow.
- **Insights** for monitoring.
- **Boost** for speeding up query performance.
- **Revert** for reverting the change.
- **Console** for mysql CLI experience in the browser.
- **Backup** for disaster recovery.

It's quite a lot to cover and PlanetScale manages to craft every pixel. e.g. [Boost](https://planetscale.com/features/boost) shows PlanetScale's strength to transform an [academic paper](https://jon.thesquareplanet.com/papers/phd-thesis.pdf) into a polished product.

![planetscale-boost](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/planetscale-boost.webp)

**Neon is relatively new and provides essentials.**

- Disaster recovery is provided by its branching feature.
- A visual SQL Editor to interact with the database.

![neon-sql-editor](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/neon-sql-editor.webp)

The SQL Editor is handy. Here Neon embeds an external view from [explain.dalibo.com](https://explain.dalibo.com/) to display the query plan. It looks a bit strange visually, but serves the purpose well.

## Integration

PlanetScale itself is already a comprehensive database platform. Its [doc site](https://planetscale.com/docs) also lists a handful of standard database integrations:

- Application frameworks from major languages.

- Monitoring with Datadog.

- Data transfer via Airbyte, Stitch, Hightouch.

Neon hasn't accumulated many standard database integrations yet. But Neon's unique capabilities unlock new integration frontiers:

- [Snaplet](https://docs.snaplet.dev/tutorials/neon/) uses Neon to instantaneously prepare production database snapshots for the testing environment.

- [Replit](https://neon.tech/blog/neon-replit-integration) leverages Neon's scale-to-zero to offer its users a minimum-cost database service.

- [Vercel](https://neon.tech/blog/neon-vercel-integration) pairs with Neon's database branching to provide a realistic preview deployment in minutes instead of hours.

## Compliance

PlanetScale has [SOC2 Type 2 and HIPAA](https://planetscale.com/docs/concepts/security). Neon has completed [SOC2 Type 2](https://neon.tech/docs/security/security-overview).

## Open Source

PlanetScale and Neon choose an identical strategy, open soucing their database codebase under the same liberal license and only charging the cloud service.

[![Star History](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/star-history.webp)](https://star-history.com/#planetscale/beam&vitessio/vitess&neondatabase/neon&Date)

PlanetScale is based on a [Vitess fork](https://github.com/planetscale/vitess) under Apache-2.0. The team once built [gh-ost](https://github.com/github/gh-ost), the
best online schema migration tool for MySQL and probably among all open source RDBMS. They also open sourced [beam](https://github.com/planetscale/beam), a message board web app to showcase PlanetScale.

Neon also [open sources](https://github.com/neondatabase/neon) its entire database codebase under Apache-2.0 license.

## Pricing

PlanetScale employs a usage-based pricing on row reads/writes. This is atypical for a database service and raises [controversy](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30457960). On one hand, it brings extra incentive for people to optimize queries, on the other hand, bad queries
are inevitable and MySQL query optimizer is also [flawed](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29455852). To offset this concern, PlanetScale
recently introduced a new [Scaler Pro tier](https://planetscale.com/blog/announcing-scaler-pro) for unlimited row reads/writes.

![planetscale-pricing](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/planetscale-pricing.webp)

Neon offers a usage-based pricing based on 4 metrics: **active compute time**, **data storage**, **data transfer out** and **data written**.
This pricing model is more traditional and predictable. Neon also provides a pricing calculator to estimate the cost.

![neon-pricing](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/neon-pricing.webp)

## Funding

Both are well-funded companies led by industry veterans. PlanetScale has raised $105M so far, while Neon nabs $103M (including a very recent [$46M series B](https://neon.tech/blog/series-b-funding)).

## PlanetScale or Neon

|                    | PlanetScale                                                              | Neon                                                                     |
| ------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Architecture       | Shared-nothing, sharded compute and storage unit                         | Shared-storage, separated compute and storage                            |
| Compatibility      | Limited by the underlying shared-nothing architecture                    | Near-compatible                                                          |
| Developer Workflow | End-to-end experience                                                    | Instantaneous and cost-effective branching                               |
| Reilability        | Proven technology with track record                                      | New architecture on a solid foundation                                   |
| Scalability        | Scale out to near infinite                                               | Scale up to an extent, scale-to-zero elasticity                          |
| Operability        | Comprehensive, polished tooling                                          | Essential, pragmatic tooling                                             |
| Integration        | Typical database integrations                                            | Novel integrations enabled by instant branching and elasticity           |
| Compliance         | SOC 2 Type 2, HIPAA                                                      | SOC2 Type 1                                                              |
| Open Source        | Close-sourced paid cloud service; Open-sourced database under Apache-2.0 | Close-sourced paid cloud service; Open-sourced database under Apache-2.0 |
| Pricing            | Row reads/writes + storage + HA                                          | Computation + storage + data transfer                                    |
| Funding            | $105M                                                                    | $103M                                                                    |

Overall, PlanetScale provides a cohesive experience for every database task. Originally, it was a hosted MySQL-compatible Vitess service only for hyperscalers. Since [pivoting to developers](https://planetscale.com/blog/announcing-planetscale-the-database-for-developers), PlanetScale has
transformed into an advanced serverless database platform that happens to speak the MySQL dialect.

Neon debuted later, and has a very similar value proposition as the new PlanetScale. Unlike PlanetScale,
Neon knows its targeting audiences from day 1, and purposefully builds the technology catering to them:

- Git-like branch management, in particular, the instant branching including both schema and data.
- Serverless database with autoscaling up and down.
- Embrace the rise of Postgres and maintain near-perfect Postgres compatibility.

## Beyond PlanetScale and Neon

Today, when choosing the database system for your next project, the very first thing to consider is
no longer between [Postgres vs. MySQL](/blog/postgres-vs-mysql). Instead, it's whether to choose
RDBMS or other genres. RDBMS still dominates the database market by shares, however, ironically,
this space doesn't advance as much as other database segments in the cloud era. Customers do have [a plethora of choices](/blog/database-as-a-service-dbaas-provider/), but none is coming close to MongoDB Altas for NoSQL
or Snowflake for OLAP.

PlanetScale and Neon are similar to each other, they are also similar to MongoDB / Snowflake:

- Like MongoDB, PlanetScale uses shared-nothing architecture, provides
  a comprehensive database platform, is developer obsessed, and tells great product stories.

- Like Snowflake, Neon brings the novel shared-storage approach to the staggering OLTP architecture, uses Postgres dialect, and also values developer experience.

Both PlanetScale and Neon could become the next MongoDB / Snowflake for modern RDBMS database-as-a-service (DBaaS). We've all been waiting too long for this.

_A side note: PlanetScale has shifted its website art direction to a simplistic style, marking another drastic difference from Neon._

![website-planetscale](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/website-planetscale.webp)
![website-neon](/content/blog/planetscale-vs-neon/website-neon.webp)

---

BTW, if you still stick with vanilla MySQL/Postgres and want PlanetScale's database change workflow or Neon's visual SQL Editor, please check out [Bytebase](/). Bytebase is a database tool for all mainstream databases, covering database change, query, security and governance all-in-one. It provides more customizable [change workflow](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/change-workflow/) and visual [SQL Editor](https://docs.bytebase.com/sql-editor/overview/) integrated with [access control](https://docs.bytebase.com/security/database-permission/overview/) and [data masking](https://docs.bytebase.com/security/data-masking/overview/).

![change-query-secure-govern-database-all-in-one](/content/blog/_shared/db-scheme-lg.png)

## Further Readings

- [Announcing PlanetScale: The database for developers](https://planetscale.com/blog/announcing-planetscale-the-database-for-developers)
- [All of the tech PlanetScale replaces](https://planetscale.com/blog/all-the-tech-planetscale-replaces)
- [One million queries per second with MySQL](https://planetscale.com/blog/one-million-queries-per-second-with-mysql)
- [Neon – Serverless Postgres](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31536827)
- [Architecture decisions in Neon](https://neon.tech/blog/architecture-decisions-in-neon)
- [Database as a Service (DBaaS) Provider](/blog/database-as-a-service-dbaas-provider/)

## Other Comparisons

- [Postgres vs. MySQL](/blog/postgres-vs-mysql)
- [MySQL vs. MariaDB](/blog/mysql-vs-mariadb)
- [Postgres vs. MongoDB](/blog/postgres-vs-mongodb)
- [Neon vs. Supabase](/blog/neon-vs-supabase)



> If Flyway is Git, then Bytebase is GitHub/GitLab.

Flyway and Bytebase both handle database schema migration, but they solve different problems. Flyway is a migration engine — you write SQL scripts, run `flyway migrate`, and it tracks what's been applied. Bytebase is an all-in-one database DevSecOps platform — migration is one part, alongside SQL review, approval workflows, access control, data masking, and audit logging. If your team needs a CLI to slot into existing CI/CD pipelines, Flyway does that well. If you need to control who can change what, enforce review before deployment, and keep an audit trail — that's the problem Bytebase solves.

## What They Have in Common

- Native SQL support for defining schema changes.
- GitOps integration — trigger migrations from pull requests.
- Schema synchronization and diff capabilities.
- Change history tracking.
- Tiered pricing with a free community edition.
- Both are open source — Flyway Community is Apache 2.0 (Redgate acquired Flyway in 2019). Bytebase is MIT licensed, with enterprise features under a commercial license.

![Star history of Bytebase and Flyway](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-flyway/star-history.webp)

## Key Differences Between Bytebase and Flyway

|                                | Flyway | Bytebase |
| ------------------------------ | ------ | -------- |
| [Developer interface](#developer-interface) | CLI + Flyway Desktop (GUI) | Web GUI + API + Terraform provider |
| [Supported databases](#supported-databases) | 30+ | 23 |
| [Installation](#installation) | Java 17 + JVM | Single Go binary, Docker, or K8s |
| [Change execution](#change-execution) | SQL scripts + CLI | Issue-based GUI or GitOps |
| [Schema sync](#schema-sync) | Flyway Desktop (1-to-1 comparison) | GUI-based batch sync (1-to-many) |
| [Batch change](#batch-change) | Manual scripting per target | Built-in multi-env / multi-tenant |
| [SQL review / code analysis](#sql-review-and-code-analysis) | Enterprise only: 74+ rules (SQLFluff + Redgate rules) | 200+ rules (all tiers) |
| [Approval flow](#approval-flow) | — | All tiers: manual rollout; Enterprise: custom approval |
| [Rollback](#rollback) | Enterprise only: manual + auto undo scripts | Auto-generated rollback + sync to any version |
| [CI/CD integration](#cicd-integration) | GitHub Actions, GitLab, Jenkins, Azure DevOps, Octopus Deploy, TeamCity | GitOps (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps) + API |
| [Change history](#change-history) | flyway_schema_history table | GUI with diff view + issue linkage |
| [Database access control & audit](#database-access-control-and-audit) | — | All tiers: workspace/project roles; Pro: SSO, audit log; Enterprise: + dynamic data masking, custom roles, just-in-time data access |
| License | Apache 2.0 | MIT + commercial (Enterprise features) |

### Pricing Comparison

|  | Free | Paid |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Flyway** | Community (Apache 2.0, CLI + Desktop, 30+ DBs) | Enterprise: contact for pricing (AI features, code review policies, state-based deployment, undo scripts, change reports, drift detection) |
| **Bytebase** | Community (self-hosted, up to 20 users, 10 instances) | Pro: $20/user/mo (cloud-only, up to 10 instances); Enterprise: custom yearly (self-hosted or cloud) |

### Developer Interface

**Flyway** offers two interfaces. The CLI is the primary tool — write SQL migration scripts, run `flyway migrate`, and it handles versioning and execution. **Flyway Desktop** (added after the Redgate acquisition) is a GUI application with a schema model view, built-in Git client, and visual diff tools. Desktop supports SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and MySQL.

**Bytebase** provides a web-based GUI where developers submit changes, DBAs review them, and the platform handles rollout. It also exposes a full [API](https://api.bytebase.com/), a [Terraform provider](https://docs.bytebase.com/integrations/terraform/overview) for infrastructure-as-code workflows, and [GitOps workflow tutorials](https://docs.bytebase.com/tutorials/gitops-github-workflow) for Git-driven automation.

### Supported Databases

**Flyway** supports 30+ databases including PostgreSQL, MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server, MariaDB, Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift, CockroachDB, ClickHouse, MongoDB, DuckDB, and many more. Database support is modular — some engines are community-contributed extensions.

**Bytebase** supports 25 database engines with deep integration: 9 RDBMS (MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server, MariaDB, TiDB, OceanBase, CockroachDB, Spanner), 6 NoSQL (MongoDB, Redis, Cassandra, DocumentDB, DynamoDB, Cosmos DB), 9 data warehouses (Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift, Hive, ClickHouse, Databricks, StarRocks, Doris, Trino), and Elasticsearch.

Flyway covers more databases. Bytebase goes deeper on each one it supports — online schema change for MySQL, engine-specific SQL review rules for PostgreSQL, column-level data masking that understands each database's type system.

### Installation

**Flyway** requires Java 17+ (JVM). Install the JVM, then install Flyway. Flyway Desktop is a separate installer for the GUI.

**Bytebase** ships as a single Go binary with no external dependencies. Deploy via [Docker](https://docs.bytebase.com/get-started/deploy-with-docker) or [Kubernetes](https://docs.bytebase.com/get-started/deploy-with-kubernetes) in under 5 minutes.

### Change Execution

**Flyway** uses versioned SQL migration scripts. Name them `V1__create_users.sql`, `V2__add_email_column.sql`, and run `flyway migrate`. Flyway tracks which versions have been applied in a metadata table and runs only the new ones. You can also use repeatable migrations (prefix `R__`) for views and stored procedures that get reapplied when their checksum changes.

**Bytebase** uses an issue-based workflow. A developer creates an issue containing SQL statements, which goes through review and approval before execution. Issues can target a single database or batch across environments. Bytebase also supports online schema change for MySQL — large table migrations that would normally lock the table for hours complete in seconds with zero downtime.

![Bytebase issue-based change workflow](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-flyway/bytebase-issue.webp)

### Schema Sync

**Flyway Desktop** provides visual schema comparison between a development database and a schema model. It generates migration scripts from the diff. This is a 1-to-1 comparison — you compare one source against one target.

**Bytebase** has a built-in [schema sync](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/synchronize-schema) through the GUI. Pick a source database and one or more targets — Bytebase generates the DDL diff for each and applies them as a batch change issue, with SQL review, approval, and audit logging included. Useful for keeping staging in sync with prod, or syncing schema across dozens of tenant databases at once.

### Batch Change

**Flyway** doesn't have built-in multi-environment orchestration. You run `flyway migrate` against each target database separately in your CI/CD pipeline. You can script this, but it's you writing the orchestration.

**Bytebase** handles this natively. A single issue can roll out changes across [multiple environments](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/batch-change#change-databases-from-multiple-environments) (dev → staging → prod) or [multiple tenants](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/batch-change#change-databases-from-multiple-tenants).

### SQL Review and Code Analysis

**Flyway Community** has no built-in SQL quality checks. **Flyway Enterprise** includes code analysis with 74+ rules — 60+ SQLFluff rules (open-source linter) plus 14+ Redgate-specific rules for code quality and security. Enterprise also includes a policy library and custom policy integration.

**Bytebase** includes [SQL Review](https://docs.bytebase.com/sql-review/review-rules) with 200+ rules across MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server, and more — available in the free tier. Rules are database-engine-specific, and you can configure error levels per environment (warn in dev, block in prod).

SQL review triggers automatically in two places:

1. When a change issue is created.
2. In GitOps — when a new PR containing SQL is created.

### Approval Flow

**Flyway** has no built-in approval workflow. Approval happens outside the tool — in your CI/CD pipeline, Jira tickets, or Slack messages.

**Bytebase** Community and Pro include manual rollout — someone explicitly clicks "Deploy" to apply a change. **Bytebase Enterprise** adds [custom approval flows](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/approval). You define rules like "DDL on prod needs DBA approval" or "changes touching 3+ databases need manager sign-off," and the system routes each issue to the right reviewers.

### Rollback

**Flyway Community** does not support rollback. **Flyway Enterprise** adds undo migrations — you write `U1__undo_create_users.sql` or use auto-generated undo scripts for common operations.

**Bytebase** auto-generates rollback statements for DML changes and supports reverting to any previous schema version via [schema sync](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/rollback-data-changes). No manual rollback scripts needed.

### CI/CD Integration

**Flyway** fits into any CI/CD pipeline as a CLI step — GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins, Azure DevOps, Octopus Deploy, Harness, TeamCity. It's a command-line tool, so it works anywhere you can run a shell command.

**Bytebase** offers [GitOps setup](https://docs.bytebase.com/gitops/overview) with GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure DevOps. SQL files committed to a repo automatically create change issues in Bytebase, with SQL review running as a merge check. For other platforms, Bytebase's [API](https://api.bytebase.com/) lets you wire up any CI/CD pipeline.

### Change History

**Flyway** tracks changes in the `flyway_schema_history` table — a record of which migrations were applied, when, and their checksums. You query it directly with SQL or run `flyway info` to see a summary.

**Bytebase** provides a visual change history with schema diffs and links back to the originating issue, reviewer, and approval chain.

### Database Access Control and Audit

**Flyway** doesn't cover this area. It's a migration tool — access control, data masking, and audit logging are outside its scope.

**Bytebase** layers access control across its tiers:

- **Community** — [workspace and project roles](https://docs.bytebase.com/administration/roles) (Owner, DBA, Developer) with built-in permissions, plus [SQL Editor](https://docs.bytebase.com/sql-editor/overview) for controlled query access.
- **Pro** — adds SSO, [audit log](https://docs.bytebase.com/security/audit-log), and user groups.
- **Enterprise** — [custom roles](https://docs.bytebase.com/administration/roles) with granular permissions, [dynamic data masking](https://docs.bytebase.com/security/data-masking/overview) at column level, enterprise SSO (OIDC, LDAP), 2FA, and just-in-time data access — developers request temporary query access, a reviewer approves it, and access expires automatically.

## When to Choose Flyway

- Your team is CLI-first and wants to embed migrations directly into existing CI/CD pipelines.
- You need to support a wide range of databases (30+), including niche or legacy systems.
- Your developers already work in Java/JVM ecosystems.
- You want Flyway Desktop's visual schema comparison for SQL Server development.
- You need a migration engine, not a governance platform — access control and approval happen in other tools.

## When to Choose Bytebase

- You want an all-in-one platform that covers migration, SQL review, access control, data masking, and audit logging.
- Your team includes DBAs or platform engineers who review database changes before they reach production.
- You need compliance — approval flows, audit trails, and data masking for SOC 2, GDPR, or internal security policies.
- You're running multi-environment or multi-tenant deployments where batch change orchestration matters.

## FAQ

### Is Flyway still open source?

Flyway Community remains Apache 2.0 licensed. Redgate acquired Flyway in 2019 and maintains both the open-source edition and commercial Flyway Enterprise with additional features (AI-powered summaries, auto undo scripts, policy library, state-based deployment).

### Can I use Flyway and Bytebase together?

They solve different layers. Flyway handles the migration file format and execution; Bytebase handles collaboration, review, and governance. If you already have a library of Flyway migration scripts, you don't have to throw them away — Bytebase can manage the review and deployment side while Flyway stays as the execution engine.

### What is Flyway Desktop?

Flyway Desktop is Redgate's GUI application for database development. It provides a visual schema model, built-in Git client, and schema comparison tools. It currently supports SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and MySQL. It's included in both Community and Enterprise editions.

### Which tool has better CI/CD integration?

Depends on what "CI/CD integration" means to you. If it means "I want a command I can add to my Jenkins/GitHub Actions pipeline," Flyway wins — it's a CLI call that works anywhere. If it means "I want SQL files in a repo to automatically become reviewed, approved change issues," Bytebase's GitOps integration does that out of the box.

### How does Flyway pricing compare to Bytebase?

Flyway Community is free. Flyway Enterprise requires contacting Redgate for a quote — no public pricing. Bytebase Community is free (up to 20 users), Pro is $20/user/month, and Enterprise is custom pricing. [Bytebase pricing details](https://www.bytebase.com/pricing/).

---

Related comparisons:

- [Bytebase vs. Atlas](/blog/bytebase-vs-atlas/)
- [Bytebase vs. Liquibase](/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/)
- [Flyway vs. Liquibase](/blog/flyway-vs-liquibase/)
- [Top Database Schema Change Tools](/blog/top-database-schema-change-tool-evolution/)



> If Liquibase is Git, then Bytebase is GitHub/GitLab.

Bytebase and Liquibase both handle database schema migration, but the right choice depends on how your team ships database changes — not just which databases you run. A solo developer writing changelogs in a terminal has different needs than a platform team where DBAs review every production migration.

## How They Approach Schema Migration

**Liquibase** (v5.0, September 2025) is a CLI-first migration engine. You define changes in XML, YAML, SQL, or JSON changelogs, then run `liquibase update` to apply them. It slots into any CI/CD pipeline as a command-line step. The commercial edition — rebranded from "Liquibase Pro" to **Liquibase Secure** in September 2025 — adds policy checks, flow files for workflow automation, and structured JSON logging.

**Bytebase** (v3.16, March 2026) is a web-based platform where developers submit changes, DBAs review and approve them, and the system rolls out across environments. Schema migration is one part of it — SQL review, access control, data masking, and audit logging are built in.

Put another way: **Liquibase is Git for databases; Bytebase is GitHub/GitLab for databases.**

## What They Have in Common

- Native SQL support for defining schema changes.
- GitOps integration — trigger migrations from pull requests.
- Schema synchronization and diff capabilities.
- Change history tracking.
- Tiered pricing with a free community edition.
- Both are open source — though Liquibase switched from Apache 2.0 to the Functional Source License (FSL) in September 2025 with v5.0. Bytebase is MIT licensed, with enterprise features under a commercial license.

![Star history of Bytebase and Liquibase](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/star-history.webp)

## Key Differences Between Bytebase and Liquibase

|                                | Liquibase | Bytebase |
| ------------------------------ | --------- | -------- |
| [Developer interface](#developer-interface) | CLI; Secure adds VS Code extension | Web GUI + API + Terraform provider |
| [Supported databases](#supported-databases) | 60+ | 23 |
| [Installation](#installation) | Java 17 + JVM | Single Go binary, Docker, or K8s |
| [Change execution](#change-execution) | Changelog + CLI; Secure adds Flow files | Issue-based GUI or GitOps |
| [Schema sync](#schema-sync) | `liquibase diff` + `diff-changelog` (CLI, 1-to-1) | GUI-based batch sync (1-to-many) |
| [Batch change](#batch-change) | Manual scripting; Secure adds Flow files | Built-in multi-env / multi-tenant |
| [SQL review / policy checks](#sql-review-and-policy-checks) | Secure only: policy checks (custom rules) | 200+ rules (all tiers) |
| [Approval flow](#approval-flow) | — | All tiers: manual rollout; Enterprise: custom approval |
| [Rollback](#rollback) | Basic (manual scripts); Secure: granular + automated | Auto-generated rollback + sync to any version |
| [CI/CD integration](#cicd-integration) | Any CLI-based pipeline; Secure adds Flow files | GitOps (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, Azure DevOps) + API |
| [Change history](#change-history) | DATABASECHANGELOG table; Secure adds structured JSON logging | GUI with diff view + issue linkage |
| [Database access control & audit](#database-access-control-and-audit) | — | All tiers: workspace/project roles; Pro: SSO, audit log; Enterprise: + dynamic data masking, custom roles, just-in-time data access |
| [Pricing](#pricing) | Community: free (FSL); Secure: quote-based (5 tiers) | Community: free (MIT); Pro: $20/user/mo; Enterprise: custom |

### Developer Interface

**Liquibase** is CLI-only for the Community edition. After Liquibase Hub was sunset in April 2023, there is no web dashboard. The Secure edition added a VS Code extension ("Liquibase Secure Developer") for IDE-based interaction, but the primary workflow remains the terminal.

**Bytebase** provides a web-based GUI where developers submit changes, DBAs review them, and the platform handles rollout. It also exposes a full [API](https://api.bytebase.com/), a [Terraform provider](https://docs.bytebase.com/integrations/terraform/overview) for infrastructure-as-code workflows, and [GitOps workflow tutorials](https://docs.bytebase.com/tutorials/gitops-github-workflow) for Git-driven automation.

### Supported Databases

**Liquibase** supports 60+ databases through a modular extension system. Core databases include PostgreSQL, MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server, MariaDB, Snowflake, MongoDB, and DB2. Many database extensions are community-contributed.

**Bytebase** supports 25 database engines with deep integration: 9 RDBMS (MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server, MariaDB, TiDB, OceanBase, CockroachDB, Spanner), 6 NoSQL (MongoDB, Redis, Cassandra, DocumentDB, DynamoDB, Cosmos DB), 9 data warehouses (Snowflake, BigQuery, Redshift, Hive, ClickHouse, Databricks, StarRocks, Doris, Trino), and Elasticsearch.

Liquibase covers more databases. Bytebase goes deeper on each one it supports — online schema change for MySQL, engine-specific SQL review rules for PostgreSQL, column-level data masking that understands each database's type system.

### Installation

**Liquibase** requires Java 17+ (as of v5.0). Install the JVM, then install Liquibase. The Secure edition includes a one-step certified installer with bundled database drivers.

**Bytebase** ships as a single Go binary with no external dependencies. Deploy via [Docker](https://docs.bytebase.com/get-started/deploy-with-docker) or [Kubernetes](https://docs.bytebase.com/get-started/deploy-with-kubernetes) in under 5 minutes.

### Change Execution

**Liquibase** uses changelogs — files in XML, YAML, SQL, or JSON that define database changes. You run `liquibase update` to apply them. Changelogs support preconditions (skip a changeset if the table already exists), contexts (apply only in certain environments), and labels (tag changesets for selective execution). The Secure edition adds Flow files: reusable YAML-based pipelines that chain multiple Liquibase commands with conditional logic — for example, run `validate` first, then `update`, and only run `rollback` if `update` fails.

![Liquibase changelog definition](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/liquibase-changelog.webp)

**Bytebase** uses an issue-based workflow. A developer creates an issue containing SQL statements, which goes through review and approval before execution. Issues can target a single database or batch across environments. Bytebase also supports online schema change for MySQL — large table migrations that would normally lock the table for hours complete in seconds with zero downtime.

![Bytebase issue-based change workflow](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/bytebase-issue.webp)

### Schema Sync

**Liquibase** offers `liquibase diff` to compare two databases and `liquibase diff-changelog` to generate a changelog from the differences. Both are CLI commands — you specify a reference database and a target, and Liquibase outputs the structural differences or the changesets needed to bring the target in line.

**Bytebase** has a built-in [schema sync](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/synchronize-schema) through the GUI. Pick a source database and one or more targets — Bytebase generates the DDL diff for each and applies them as a batch change issue, with SQL review, approval, and audit logging included. Useful for keeping staging in sync with prod, or syncing schema across dozens of tenant databases at once.

### Batch Change

**Liquibase** doesn't have built-in multi-environment orchestration. You run `liquibase update` against each target database separately in your CI/CD pipeline. The Secure edition's Flow files help — you can define a YAML pipeline that runs the same changelog against dev, staging, and prod in sequence, with gates between stages. But it's still you writing the orchestration, not the tool managing it.

**Bytebase** handles this natively. A single issue can roll out changes across [multiple environments](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/batch-change#change-databases-from-multiple-environments) (dev → staging → prod) or [multiple tenants](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/batch-change#change-databases-from-multiple-tenants).

### SQL Review and Policy Checks

**Liquibase Community** has no built-in SQL quality checks. **Liquibase Secure** offers Policy Checks (renamed from "Quality Checks" in September 2024) with custom rules and conditional logic chains (AND/OR/NOT). You can write checks like "block any changeset that drops a table in production" or "require a rollback section for every changeset." These operate on changelog structure and SQL patterns — useful for governance, though less granular than engine-specific SQL analysis.

![Liquibase policy check configuration](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/liquibase-quality-check.webp)

**Bytebase** includes [SQL Review](https://docs.bytebase.com/sql-review/review-rules) with 200+ rules across MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server, and more — available in the free tier. Rules are database-engine-specific (not generic), and you can configure error levels per environment (warn in dev, block in prod).

![Bytebase SQL review rules configuration](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/bytebase-sql-review-rules.webp)

SQL review triggers automatically in two places:

1. When a change issue is created.
2. In GitOps — when a new PR containing SQL is created.

### Approval Flow

**Liquibase** has no built-in approval workflow in either edition. Approval happens outside the tool — in your CI/CD pipeline, Jira tickets, or Slack messages.

**Bytebase** Community and Pro include manual rollout — someone explicitly clicks "Deploy" to apply a change. **Bytebase Enterprise** adds [custom approval flows](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/approval). You define rules like "DDL on prod needs DBA approval" or "changes touching 3+ databases need manager sign-off," and the system routes each issue to the right reviewers based on what it touches.

### Rollback

**Liquibase Community** supports basic rollback — you write rollback SQL manually in your changelog and run `liquibase rollback` to a specific tag or date. **Liquibase Secure** improves this with auto-generated rollback scripts for common operations, rollback reports (added in v4.27.0) that show what was rolled back, skipped, or failed, and custom rollback logic for complex cases.

**Bytebase** auto-generates rollback statements for DML changes and supports reverting to any previous schema version via [schema sync](https://docs.bytebase.com/change-database/rollback-data-changes). No manual rollback scripts needed.

### CI/CD Integration

**Liquibase** fits into any CI/CD pipeline as a CLI step — GitHub Actions, GitLab CI, Jenkins, CircleCI. The Secure edition's Flow files add reusable pipeline definitions with conditional branching based on exit codes.

**Bytebase** offers [GitOps setup](https://docs.bytebase.com/gitops/overview) with GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket, and Azure DevOps. SQL files committed to a repo automatically create change issues in Bytebase, with SQL review running as a merge check. For other platforms, Bytebase's [API](https://api.bytebase.com/) lets you wire up any CI/CD pipeline.

![Bytebase GitOps SQL review in GitLab merge request](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/bytebase-gitops-merge.webp)

### Change History

**Liquibase** tracks changes in the `DATABASECHANGELOG` table — a record of which changesets were applied, when, and by whom. You query it directly with SQL. The Secure edition adds structured JSON logging (replacing the old text-based logs) that you can pipe into Datadog, Splunk, or any log aggregator. This is how Liquibase replaced the Hub dashboard — instead of a built-in UI, you build observability from the log stream.

**Bytebase** provides a visual change history with schema diffs and links back to the originating issue, reviewer, and approval chain.

![Bytebase change history with diff view](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/bytebase-change-diff.webp)

### Database Access Control and Audit

**Liquibase** doesn't cover this area. Neither edition has access control, data masking, or audit logging — the Secure edition's structured logs tell you what changed and when, but not who queried what data. If you need database access governance, you'd pair Liquibase with a separate tool.

**Bytebase** layers access control across its tiers:

- **Community** — [workspace and project roles](https://docs.bytebase.com/administration/roles) (Owner, DBA, Developer) with built-in permissions, plus [SQL Editor](https://docs.bytebase.com/sql-editor/overview) for controlled query access.
- **Pro** — adds SSO, [audit log](https://docs.bytebase.com/security/audit-log), and user groups.
- **Enterprise** — [custom roles](https://docs.bytebase.com/administration/roles) with granular permissions, [dynamic data masking](https://docs.bytebase.com/security/data-masking/overview) at column level, enterprise SSO (OIDC, LDAP), 2FA, and Just-In-Time data access — developers request temporary query access, a reviewer approves it, and access expires automatically.

![Bytebase SQL Editor with controlled data access](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-liquibase/bytebase-sql-editor.webp)

### Pricing

**Liquibase** restructured its pricing in September 2025 into five tiers: Community (free), Starter, Growth, Business, and Enterprise. All paid tiers are branded "Liquibase Secure." Paid plans are gated by number of applications, database types, and company revenue (Starter and Growth require under $1B revenue). No public pricing — quotes only.

**Bytebase** has three tiers: Community (free, self-hosted, up to 20 users, 10 instances), Pro ($20/user/month, cloud-only, up to 10 instances), and Enterprise (custom pricing yearly, self-hosted or cloud). [Full pricing details](https://www.bytebase.com/pricing/).

## When to Choose Liquibase

- Your team is CLI-first and wants to embed migrations directly into existing CI/CD pipelines.
- You need to support a wide range of databases (60+), including niche or legacy systems.
- Your developers already work in Java/JVM ecosystems.
- You need a migration engine, not a governance platform — access control and approval happen in other tools.

## When to Choose Bytebase

- You want an all-in-one platform that covers migration, SQL review, access control, data masking, and audit logging — not just a migration CLI.
- Your team includes DBAs or platform engineers who review database changes before they reach production.
- You need compliance — approval flows, audit trails, and data masking for SOC 2, GDPR, or internal security policies.
- You're running multi-environment or multi-tenant deployments where batch change orchestration matters.

## FAQ

### Can I use Liquibase and Bytebase together?

They solve different layers. Liquibase handles the migration file format and execution; Bytebase handles collaboration, review, and governance. Most teams pick one, but if you already have a library of Liquibase changelogs, you don't have to throw them away — Bytebase can manage the review and deployment side while Liquibase stays as the execution engine.

### Is Liquibase still open source?

Liquibase Community switched from Apache 2.0 to the Functional Source License (FSL) in September 2025. FSL is not an OSI-approved open source license — it restricts commercial use in competing products. Each version reverts to Apache 2.0 after two years. Bytebase is MIT licensed, with enterprise features under a commercial license.

### Which tool has better CI/CD integration?

Depends on what "CI/CD integration" means to you. If it means "I want a command I can add to my Jenkins/GitHub Actions pipeline," Liquibase wins — it's just a CLI call. If it means "I want SQL files in a repo to automatically become reviewed, approved change issues," Bytebase's GitOps integration does that out of the box.

### What happened to Liquibase Hub?

Liquibase Hub (the web dashboard) was sunset in April 2023 and never replaced. There's no Liquibase GUI anymore. The Secure edition compensates with structured JSON logs you can pipe into Datadog or Splunk, and a VS Code extension for IDE-based interaction — but if you want a web UI for database changes, Liquibase doesn't have one.

---

Related comparisons:

- [Bytebase vs. Atlas](/blog/bytebase-vs-atlas/)
- [Bytebase vs. Flyway](/blog/bytebase-vs-flyway/)
- [Flyway vs. Liquibase](/blog/flyway-vs-liquibase/)
- [Top Database Schema Change Tools](/blog/top-database-schema-change-tool-evolution/)



When evaluating database management tools, Navicat and Bytebase represent two different philosophies: individual desktop productivity versus team collaboration and governance. Both tools have earned distinct positions in the database ecosystem, each optimized for a different mode of work.

Navicat, launched in 2001, has spent two decades refining a **comprehensive desktop GUI for operating databases as a single user**. Starting with MySQL and later adding MariaDB, MongoDB, Oracle, SQLite, PostgreSQL, and SQL Server, it remains one of the most fully-featured single-user clients on the market.

![navicat](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/navicat.webp)

Bytebase, on the other hand, emerged from the recognition that modern development teams need **collaborative database management tools that integrate with DevOps workflows and enforce centralized control**.

![bytebase-sql-editor](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-sql-editor.webp)

## Feature Comparison

| Feature | Navicat | Bytebase |
|---------|---------|----------|
| **Product Position** | Single-user database GUI | Collaborative database development platform |
| **Interface** | Desktop application | Web-based platform |
| **Installation** | Desktop install on each machine | Single binary deployment |
| **Database Support** | 7 engines (MySQL, MariaDB, MongoDB, Oracle, SQLite, PostgreSQL, SQL Server) | 25 enterprise-focused engines |
| **User Experience** | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Mature desktop UI | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Modern web UI |
| **Query Development** | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Solid SQL editor | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Solid SQL editor |
| **Team Collaboration** | ⭐ Minimal | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Excellent |
| **Credential Management** | ❌ Distributed per user | ✅ Centralized |
| **Change Management** | ❌ Direct changes only | ✅ Review workflow |
| **Access Control** | ❌ Tied to DB credentials | ✅ Fine-grained RBAC |
| **Data Masking** | ❌ Not available | ✅ Dynamic masking (Paid) |
| **Audit Log** | ❌ Not available | ✅ Comprehensive (Paid) |
| **SQL Review Policy** | ❌ Not available | ✅ Built-in lint rules |
| **GitOps Integration** | ❌ Manual processes | ✅ Native VCS integration |
| **Governance & Compliance** | ⭐ Limited | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Enterprise-grade |
| **DevOps Integration** | ⭐ Minimal | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Native |
| **Licensing Model** | Per-seat perpetual or annual | Free + paid tiers, open source core |
| **Open Source** | ❌ Proprietary | ✅ [Open source](https://github.com/bytebase/bytebase) |

## Database Engine Support Comparison

### Navicat: Classic Relational + Selected NoSQL (7 Engines)

Navicat covers the long-established commercial and open-source databases used by most teams:

- **Core Relational**: MySQL, MariaDB, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server, SQLite
- **NoSQL**: MongoDB

Each engine ships as a separate SKU (Navicat for MySQL, Navicat for PostgreSQL, etc.), and the unified **Navicat Premium** bundles them at a higher price point.

### Bytebase: Enterprise-Focused Support (25 Engines)

Bytebase supports **25 carefully selected database engines** focusing on enterprise environments:

- **Core Relational**: MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server, MariaDB, SQLite
- **Cloud Warehouses**: Snowflake, Redshift, BigQuery, Databricks
- **Modern Analytics**: ClickHouse, StarRocks, RisingWave
- **NoSQL & Emerging**: MongoDB, Redis, TiDB, OceanBase

**Key Difference**: Navicat targets the traditional OLTP stack a single DBA or developer touches day-to-day, while Bytebase covers the broader analytics and modern-data-stack engines that show up in team environments.

## Target Roles and Responsibilities

### Navicat: Individual Developers and Solo DBAs

**Best suited for:**
- **Database Developers**: Schema design, query writing, ad-hoc data exploration on a personal machine
- **Solo DBAs**: Running maintenance, backups, and data transfers on databases they own end-to-end
- **Freelancers and Consultants**: Quickly connecting to a client database without infrastructure setup
- **Students and Hobbyists**: Learning SQL or working on personal projects

### Bytebase: Team-Oriented Roles and Coordinators

**Best suited for:**
- **Team-Based Developers**: Collaborative environments, shared queries, web-based access
- **Database Administrators**: Production governance, team coordination, organizational policies
- **DevOps/Platform Engineers**: CI/CD integration, automated deployments, standardized operations
- **Engineering Managers & Security Engineers**: Change coordination, governance, access controls, audit trails

### Key Difference

- **Navicat**: Individual productivity on a workstation, single set of credentials per user
- **Bytebase**: Team collaboration, governance, structured change management, centralized credentials

## Goals and Objectives Each Tool Achieves

The choice between Navicat and Bytebase usually comes down to whether the work is owned by one person or by a team.

### Navicat: Maximizing Solo Productivity

**Primary Goals:**
- **Operate a Database End-to-End**: Connect, query, edit, back up, and transfer data from a single client
- **Cover Multiple Engines Locally**: Switch between MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, and MongoDB without leaving the app
- **Provide a Mature Desktop UX**: Two decades of refinement on visual schema design, ER diagrams, and import/export wizards
- **Work Offline**: No server-side dependencies — the application is the system

### Bytebase: Enabling Team Collaboration and Governance

**Primary Goals:**
- **Implement Database DevOps**: Integrate database changes into modern CI/CD pipelines with GitOps workflows
- **Ensure Change Control**: Prevent unauthorized or risky database modifications through review and approval processes
- **Maintain Compliance**: Provide comprehensive audit trails and access controls for regulatory requirements
- **Standardize Processes**: Establish consistent database management practices across teams and environments
- **Reduce Security Risks**: Centralize credential management and implement fine-grained access controls

**Secondary Goals:**
- **Improve Team Coordination**: Enable collaboration on database changes and knowledge sharing
- **Automate Governance**: Implement SQL review policies and automated quality checks
- **Scale Operations**: Support multi-environment deployments and tenant management

## Real-World Use Case Studies

### Use Case 1: Distributing Database Access to a Growing Team

**Scenario**: A 20-person engineering team needs read access to production PostgreSQL and MySQL for debugging.

**Navicat**: The DBA exports connection strings and shares credentials over chat or a password manager. Each developer installs Navicat locally and stores credentials on their machine. Revoking access means rotating the shared password and re-distributing it.
*Result: Fast initial setup, but credentials sprawl across laptops and there is no record of who ran what.*

**Bytebase**: The DBA configures the instances once in Bytebase, grants per-developer roles, and developers log in via SSO. Queries run through Bytebase's SQL Editor — no database credentials leave the server. Revocation is a single click.
*Result: Centralized access with full audit trail; onboarding and offboarding are operations on Bytebase, not on the database.*

![bytebase-access-control](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-access-control.webp)

### Use Case 2: Reviewing a Production Schema Change

**Scenario**: A developer needs to add a non-null column and backfill data on a 50M-row table in production.

**Navicat**: The developer writes the `ALTER TABLE` and `UPDATE` in Navicat's SQL editor and executes against production directly. Coordination happens out of band — a Slack message, a Jira ticket, or a verbal review. A wrong `WHERE` clause is one keystroke away from disaster.
*Result: Maximum speed, minimum safety. Mistakes are immediate and unrecoverable.*

**Bytebase**: The developer submits the change as an issue. Bytebase's SQL review policy flags the missing `WHERE` automatically; a DBA approves the migration; Bytebase runs it against staging, then production, recording every step.
*Result: Reviewable, replayable, auditable — the change passes through the same kind of pipeline code does.*

![bytebase-change-process](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-change-process.webp)

### Use Case 3: Letting Support Engineers Query Customer Data

**Scenario**: A support team needs to look up customer records in production, but PII must not be exposed.

**Navicat**: Support engineers get read-only database credentials. They see every column in full, including emails, phone numbers, and payment metadata. The only options are "give them access" or "don't."
*Result: Either over-exposure or a ticket queue routed through the DBA.*

**Bytebase**: The DBA configures column-level masking policies. Support engineers query through Bytebase's SQL Editor; PII columns return masked values automatically. Every query is logged with the engineer's identity.
*Result: Self-service access with PII protected at the query layer, not at the application layer.*

![bytebase-data-masking](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-data-masking.webp)

## What Navicat and Bytebase Have in Common

Despite their different approaches, both platforms share several core capabilities:

- **Multi-database support**: Both connect to the major relational engines and MongoDB
- **SQL editor with results grid**: Syntax highlighting, query execution, result browsing
- **Schema browsing and editing**: Table, view, index, and constraint management
- **Data import/export**: CSV, SQL, and other common formats
- **Visual query results**: Sortable, filterable grids over query output

## Navicat's Strengths: Where It Truly Excels

- **Mature Desktop UX**: Two decades of refinement — ER diagrams, visual query builder, data modeler, schema sync, all polished and stable
- **Offline-First**: The application is self-contained; no server, no network dependency beyond the database connection itself
- **Breadth of Local Tooling**: Backup scheduling, data transfer between databases, import/export wizards, and report builders all ship in a single binary
- **Single-User Speed**: For one person operating a database they own, there is no review layer, no approval queue — just direct access
- **Low Operational Overhead**: Install the app, enter credentials, work — no infrastructure to maintain

## Bytebase's Strengths: Team Collaboration and Governance

- **Centralized Credential Management**: Database credentials never leave the Bytebase server. Developers authenticate to Bytebase via SSO; Bytebase authenticates to the database. Eliminates the credential sprawl that comes with desktop clients.

![bytebase-admin-mode](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-admin-mode.webp)

- **Fine-Grained Access Control**: Grant access to specific databases, schemas, or tables within an instance — not just "the whole server or nothing"
- **Data Masking**: Column-level masking policies protect PII at the query layer, with no application changes required
- **Change Review Workflow**: Every schema and data change passes through review, lint, and approval before reaching production
- **SQL Review Policy**: Automated checks for missing `WHERE` clauses, missing indexes, unsafe DDL, and dozens of other anti-patterns

![bytebase-sql-review](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-sql-review.webp)

- **Comprehensive Audit Log**: Every query, every change, every approval recorded with user identity — the answer to "who did what" is always one filter away

![bytebase-audit-log](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-audit-log.webp)

- **GitOps Integration**: Schema migrations live in your repository; merging a PR triggers the deployment pipeline through Bytebase

![bytebase-gitops](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-gitops.webp)

- **Shared Query Library**: Save and share SQL across the team — the team's collective knowledge instead of scripts scattered across laptops

![bytebase-share-scripts](/content/blog/bytebase-vs-navicat/bytebase-share-scripts.webp)

## Making the Right Choice

**Core Trade-off**: Navicat prioritizes individual productivity on a desktop with direct database access. Bytebase prioritizes team collaboration and governance with centralized access and review workflows.

### Choose Navicat When:

- You are operating a database alone or in a very small team
- Direct, unmediated database access is acceptable
- There are no compliance or audit requirements
- Offline desktop work matters more than collaboration

### Choose Bytebase When:

- Multiple people touch the same databases
- Database credentials should never be distributed to individuals
- Schema and data changes need review, approval, and audit
- DevOps integration and automated workflows are priorities
- Compliance (SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, PCI-DSS) is in scope

## Conclusion

Navicat excels as a sophisticated single-user desktop database client with mature tooling and excellent individual productivity. Bytebase focuses on team collaboration, database DevOps, and governance. The choice depends on whether the work is owned by one person — where Navicat's direct, unmediated access is an advantage — or by a team, where centralized control, review workflows, and audit trails are required.

In addition, Bytebase is [open source](https://github.com/bytebase/bytebase) and adopts a usage-based pricing model.


Bytebase ブログ

データベース開発のスタンダードを体験する

ソリューションとプラットフォーム

比較

法的事項

リソース

会社

ソリューションとプラットフォーム

リソース

比較

会社

法的事項