CockroachDB vs Amazon Aurora

The cockroach of databases: hard to kill, spreads everywhere, and surprisingly good at SQL meets aws's database that makes you feel fancy without the price tag of oracle, but still costs more than your rent. Here's our take.

CockroachDB

Nice Pick

The cockroach of databases: hard to kill, spreads everywhere, and surprisingly good at SQL.

Pros

• Strong consistency across distributed nodes without manual sharding
• PostgreSQL wire protocol compatibility for easy migration
• Automatic data replication and rebalancing for high availability

Cons

• Higher latency compared to single-node databases due to distributed overhead
• Complex licensing and pricing can be a headache for scaling

Amazon Aurora

AWS's database that makes you feel fancy without the price tag of Oracle, but still costs more than your rent.

Pros

• Fully managed with automatic scaling, backups, and patching
• Up to 5x MySQL and 3x PostgreSQL performance with cloud-optimized storage
• High availability and durability through multi-AZ replication
• MySQL and PostgreSQL compatibility for easy migration

Cons

• Can get expensive quickly with scaling and I/O costs
• Vendor lock-in to AWS ecosystem
• Limited to AWS regions, which might affect latency for global apps

The Verdict

Use CockroachDB if: You want strong consistency across distributed nodes without manual sharding and can live with higher latency compared to single-node databases due to distributed overhead.

Use Amazon Aurora if: You prioritize fully managed with automatic scaling, backups, and patching over what CockroachDB offers.

The Bottom Line

CockroachDB wins

The cockroach of databases: hard to kill, spreads everywhere, and surprisingly good at SQL.