Pick / avoid summary (fast)
Skim these triggers to pick a default, then validate with the quick checks and constraints below.
- ✓ You want MySQL compatibility with a serverless workflow
- ✓ You prefer managed MySQL sharding via Vitess
- ✓ You want branching and modern developer workflows
- ✓ You need MySQL-compatible native distributed SQL
- ✓ You require HTAP capabilities (real-time analytics on transactional data)
- ✓ You want to avoid sharding complexity
- × Not Postgres; ecosystem and features differ from Postgres-centric stacks
- × Operational constraints and limits must be validated
- × Higher latency than single-node Postgres for simple queries
- × Cost at small scale (distributed overhead)
-
CheckSharding complexity vs native distributed SQL is a key operational difference.
-
The trade-offmanaged MySQL sharding vs native distributed SQL with HTAP.
At-a-glance comparison
PlanetScale
Serverless MySQL platform (Vitess-based) evaluated when teams want MySQL compatibility plus modern workflows and horizontal scaling patterns.
- ✓ MySQL-compatible relational option with modern workflows
- ✓ Often evaluated when teams want serverless model and scaling patterns
- ✓ Can be a strong fit for teams preferring MySQL ecosystem
TiDB Cloud
MySQL-compatible distributed SQL database with HTAP capabilities, evaluated when teams need MySQL compatibility at scale, real-time analytics on transactional data, or horizontal scaling without sharding complexity.
- ✓ MySQL wire-compatible (drop-in for many MySQL apps)
- ✓ Horizontal scale-out without sharding
- ✓ HTAP (real-time analytics on transactional data via TiFlash)
What breaks first (decision checks)
These checks reflect the common constraints that decide between PlanetScale and TiDB Cloud in this category.
If you only read one section, read this — these are the checks that force redesigns or budget surprises.
- Real trade-off: Managed MySQL sharding (Vitess-based) with serverless workflow vs native distributed SQL engine with HTAP capabilities.
- Operational model and ownership: Define your scaling path (single region vs multi-region resilience)
- Ecosystem alignment vs portability: Identify integration gravity (identity, networking, observability)
Implementation gotchas
These are the practical downsides teams tend to discover during setup, rollout, or scaling.
Where PlanetScale surprises teams
- Not Postgres; ecosystem and features differ from Postgres-centric stacks
- Operational constraints and limits must be validated
- Migration and data model decisions still carry switching costs
Where TiDB Cloud surprises teams
- Higher latency than single-node Postgres for simple queries
- Cost at small scale (distributed overhead)
- Fewer managed cloud regions than Aurora/AlloyDB
Where each product pulls ahead
These are the distinctive advantages that matter most in this comparison.
PlanetScale advantages
- ✓ MySQL-compatible serverless workflow with branching
- ✓ Managed MySQL sharding via Vitess
- ✓ Modern developer workflows and platform DX
TiDB Cloud advantages
- ✓ MySQL-compatible native distributed SQL engine
- ✓ HTAP capabilities for real-time analytics
- ✓ Horizontal scale without sharding complexity
Pros and cons
PlanetScale
Pros
- + You want MySQL compatibility with a serverless workflow
- + You prefer managed MySQL sharding via Vitess
- + You want branching and modern developer workflows
- + You can validate limits and production constraints early
- + You don't require HTAP capabilities for real-time analytics
- + You want a platform model with modern DX
Cons
- − Not Postgres; ecosystem and features differ from Postgres-centric stacks
- − Operational constraints and limits must be validated
- − Migration and data model decisions still carry switching costs
- − Platform coupling can create switching cost if you adopt platform-specific workflows deeply
- − You must validate production constraints early to avoid rework later
- − Not a fit if your stack is deeply Postgres-centric and you need Postgres compatibility
TiDB Cloud
Pros
- + You need MySQL-compatible native distributed SQL
- + You require HTAP capabilities (real-time analytics on transactional data)
- + You want to avoid sharding complexity
- + You can validate HTAP use cases and distributed SQL fit
- + You need horizontal scale without sharding overhead
- + You can own migrations and schema governance
Cons
- − Higher latency than single-node Postgres for simple queries
- − Cost at small scale (distributed overhead)
- − Fewer managed cloud regions than Aurora/AlloyDB
- − Learning curve for distributed SQL tuning
- − Less mature ecosystem vs PostgreSQL-based solutions
Keep exploring this category
If you’re close to a decision, the fastest next step is to read 1–2 more head-to-head briefs, then confirm pricing limits in the product detail pages.
FAQ
How do you choose between PlanetScale and TiDB Cloud?
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.
When should you pick PlanetScale?
Pick PlanetScale when: You want MySQL compatibility with a serverless workflow; You prefer managed MySQL sharding via Vitess; You want branching and modern developer workflows; You can validate limits and production constraints early.
When should you pick TiDB Cloud?
Pick TiDB Cloud when: You need MySQL-compatible native distributed SQL; You require HTAP capabilities (real-time analytics on transactional data); You want to avoid sharding complexity; You can validate HTAP use cases and distributed SQL fit.
What’s the real trade-off between PlanetScale and TiDB Cloud?
Managed MySQL sharding (Vitess-based) with serverless workflow vs native distributed SQL engine with HTAP capabilities.
What’s the most common mistake buyers make in this comparison?
Choosing based on MySQL compatibility alone without evaluating sharding complexity vs native distributed SQL and HTAP requirements.
What’s the fastest elimination rule?
Pick PlanetScale if MySQL compatibility + serverless workflow + managed sharding is primary.
What breaks first with PlanetScale?
Choosing MySQL compatibility when your org is actually Postgres-centric (mismatch costs later). Production constraints that weren’t validated early (limits, operational expectations). Cost predictability once usage grows without guardrails.
What are the hidden constraints of PlanetScale?
Validate production constraints and cost drivers early. Switching costs exist if data model and workflow become coupled. Have an explicit exit plan if requirements later force a different operating model.
Share this comparison
Sources & verification
We prefer to link primary references (official pricing, documentation, and public product pages). If links are missing, treat this as a seeded brief until verification is completed.