How to choose between common A vs B options—using decision briefs that show who each product fits, what breaks first, and where pricing changes behavior.
Most buyers compare feature lists first, then discover the real decision is about constraints: cost cliffs, governance requirements, and the limits that force redesigns at scale.
Common pitfall: Operational model and ownership: Managed cloud databases reduce some ownership but still require governance, migrations, and performance discipline. Serverless/dev-first databases optimize workflow but can impose constraints. Distributed SQL changes the operating model again to achieve resilience and horizontal scale.
If you only have two minutes, do this sequence. It’s designed to get you to a confident default choice quickly, then validate it with the few checks that actually decide fit.
Start with your non‑negotiables (latency model, limits, compliance boundary, or operational control).
Pick two candidates that target the same abstraction level (so the comparison is apples-to-apples).
Validate cost behavior at scale: where do the price cliffs appear (traffic spikes, storage, egress, seats, invocations)?
Confirm the first failure mode you can’t tolerate (timeouts, rate limits, cold starts, vendor lock‑in, missing integrations).
Operational model and ownership: Managed cloud databases reduce some ownership but still require governance, migrations, and performance discipline. Serverless/dev-first databases optimize workflow but can impose constraints. Distributed SQL changes the operating model again to achieve resilience and horizontal scale.
Ecosystem alignment vs portability: Cloud flagships integrate deeply into a provider ecosystem, reducing friction but increasing switching cost. Independents can improve portability and developer workflow but may shift responsibilities back to the team.
This is an editorial collection page. Each link below goes to a decision brief that explains why the pair is comparable, where the trade‑offs show up under real usage, and what tends to break first when you push the product past its “happy path.”
This hub isn’t a feature checklist or a “best tools” ranking. If you’re early in your search, start with the category page; if you already have two candidates, this hub is the fastest path to a confident default choice.
Choose Aurora Postgres if you’re AWS-first and want a managed relational core aligned to AWS identity, networking, and managed services. Choose AlloyDB if you’re GCP-first and want the same baseline aligned to Google Cloud. Both can be excellent; governance, migrations, and performance discipline still need ownership either way.
Choose AlloyDB if you’re GCP-first and want a managed Postgres-compatible baseline aligned to Google Cloud. Choose Azure Database for PostgreSQL if you’re Azure-first and want managed Postgres aligned to Microsoft governance and tooling. Both still require schema/migration governance and performance discipline from your team.
Choose Aurora Postgres if AWS is your home ecosystem and you want a managed relational core aligned to AWS tooling. Choose Azure Database for PostgreSQL if your org is Microsoft/Azure-first and you want managed Postgres aligned to Azure governance. Either way, migrations and schema governance remain your responsibility.
Choose Neon when branching/ephemeral environments and developer workflow speed are the bottleneck. Choose Aurora when you want an AWS-aligned managed Postgres baseline optimized for production governance and ecosystem adjacency. The decision is workflow vs production operating model and alignment.
Choose Neon when developer workflow speed (branching, ephemeral environments) is the priority. Choose AlloyDB when you’re GCP-first and want a managed Postgres-compatible baseline aligned to Google Cloud governance and service adjacency. The right choice depends on whether workflow or ecosystem-aligned production operations is the constraint.
Choose Supabase when you want managed Postgres plus platform tooling to ship quickly and your needs fit standard CIAM/DB patterns. Choose Azure Database for PostgreSQL when you’re Azure-first and want an infra-first managed Postgres baseline aligned to enterprise governance and Azure tooling. The decision is platform DX vs ecosystem-aligned production operations.
Choose Supabase when you want managed Postgres plus platform tooling to ship quickly and the platform model fits your needs. Choose Aurora when you’re AWS-first and want a managed Postgres-compatible baseline aligned to AWS governance and service adjacency. The decision is platform DX vs AWS-aligned production operating model.
Choose CockroachDB Cloud when resilience and scaling patterns beyond a single-region database are required and you can handle the distributed SQL operating model. Choose Aurora when a managed Postgres baseline is sufficient and you want AWS ecosystem alignment with lower conceptual complexity. The decision is distributed resilience vs simpler operating model.
Choose CockroachDB Cloud when distributed SQL resilience and scaling patterns are required and you can operate the model. Choose AlloyDB when you want a GCP-first managed Postgres-compatible baseline with a simpler operating model. The decision is distributed resilience vs managed Postgres simplicity.
Choose PlanetScale when you want MySQL compatibility with a serverless/dev-first workflow and your application fits that model. Choose Aurora when you want an AWS-aligned managed Postgres-compatible baseline and your stack is Postgres-oriented. The decision is compatibility + workflow vs AWS-aligned production operations.
Choose Neon when branching, preview environments, and a Postgres-first workflow are the biggest leverage. Choose Supabase Database when you want managed Postgres inside a broader integrated developer platform and are comfortable with platform coupling. The decision is workflow focus vs integrated platform DX.
Choose Neon when you want Postgres with branching/ephemeral environments as a workflow primitive. Choose PlanetScale when MySQL compatibility is important and you want a modern serverless MySQL workflow. The key decision is Postgres vs MySQL ecosystem and the workflow model you want long-term.
Choose Neon when developer workflow speed (branching, ephemeral environments) is the primary constraint and single-region Postgres fits your reliability model. Choose CockroachDB Cloud when you need distributed SQL resilience patterns and can accept added complexity. The decision is workflow leverage vs distributed resilience.
Choose Supabase Database when you want Postgres paired with an integrated developer platform experience to accelerate shipping. Choose PlanetScale when MySQL compatibility is a requirement and you want a modern serverless MySQL workflow. The decision is integrated Postgres platform vs MySQL-first workflow and compatibility.
Choose Supabase Database when you want managed Postgres with an integrated developer platform experience and your reliability needs fit a single-region relational core. Choose CockroachDB Cloud when multi-region resilience or distributed SQL patterns are requirements and you can accept additional complexity. The decision is platform DX vs distributed resilience.
Choose PlanetScale when MySQL compatibility is required and you want a modern serverless workflow around a MySQL-compatible database. Choose CockroachDB Cloud when you need distributed SQL resilience patterns (often multi-region) and can accept added complexity. The decision is MySQL-first workflow vs distributed resilience.
Choose CockroachDB Cloud if you need PostgreSQL-compatible distributed SQL with strong survival guarantees and your stack is Postgres-oriented. Choose TiDB Cloud if you need MySQL-compatible distributed SQL with HTAP capabilities for real-time analytics on transactional data. The decision is Postgres ecosystem + survival vs MySQL ecosystem + real-time analytics.
Choose PlanetScale if you want MySQL compatibility with a serverless workflow and managed MySQL sharding via Vitess fits your scaling model. Choose TiDB Cloud if you need MySQL-compatible native distributed SQL with HTAP capabilities and want to avoid sharding complexity. The decision is managed MySQL sharding vs native distributed SQL with HTAP.
Pricing and availability may change. Verify details on the official website.
Start with a product decision brief, then come back here to compare once you have two candidates.