DBMS > AnzoGraph DB vs. Graph Engine vs. MaxDB vs. Snowflake vs. SurrealDB

System Properties Comparison AnzoGraph DB vs. Graph Engine vs. MaxDB vs. Snowflake vs. SurrealDB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

Scalable graph database built for online analytics and data harmonization with MPP scaling, high-performance analytical algorithms and reasoning, and virtualization

A distributed in-memory data processing engine, underpinned by a strongly-typed RAM store and a general distributed computation engine

A robust and reliable RDBMS optimized to run all major SAP solutions

Cloud-based data warehousing service for structured and semi-structured data

A fully ACID transactional, developer-friendly, multi-model DBMS

Primary database model

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Graph DBMS
Key-value store

Relational DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS

DB-Engines Ranking measures the popularity of database management systems
Trend Chart

Score	0.23
Rank	#307	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Score	0.61
Rank	#240	Overall
	#21	Graph DBMS
	#35	Key-value stores

Score	2.32
Rank	#112	Overall
	#55	Relational DBMS

Score	121.33
Rank	#9	Overall
	#6	Relational DBMS

Score	0.86
Rank	#203	Overall
	#34	Document stores
	#18	Graph DBMS

Website

cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph

Technical documentation

docs.cambridgesemantics.com/anzograph/userdoc/home.htm

www.graphengine.io/docs/manual

maxdb.sap.com/documentation

docs.snowflake.net/manuals/index.html

surrealdb.com/docs

Developer

Cambridge Semantics

Microsoft

SAP, acquired from Software AG (Adabas-D) in 1997

Snowflake Computing Inc.

SurrealDB Ltd

Initial release

2018

2010

1984

2014

2022

Current release

2.3, January 2021

7.9.10.12, February 2024

v1.5.0, May 2024

License

Commercial or Open Source

commercial

free trial version available

Open Source

MIT License

commercial

Limited community edition free

commercial

Open Source

Cloud-based only

Only available as a cloud service

yes

DBaaS offerings (sponsored links)

Database as a Service

Providers of DBaaS offerings, please contact us to be listed.

Implementation language

.NET and C

C++

Rust

Server operating systems

Linux

.NET

AIX
HP-UX
Linux
Solaris
Windows

hosted

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

Schema-free and OWL/RDFS-schema support

yes

support of semi-structured data formats (JSON, XML, Avro)

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

XML support

Some form of processing data in XML format, e.g. support for XML data structures, and/or support for XPath, XQuery or XSLT.

yes

Secondary indexes

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SPARQL and SPARQL* as primary query language. Cypher preview.

yes

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

Apache Mule
gRPC
JDBC
Kafka
OData access for BI tools
OpenCypher
RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL

RESTful HTTP API

ADO.NET
JDBC
ODBC
WebDAV

CLI Client
JDBC
ODBC

GraphQL
RESTful HTTP API
WebSocket

Supported programming languages

C++
Java
Python

C#
C++
F#
Visual Basic

.Net
C#
Java
Perl
PHP
Python

JavaScript (Node.js)
Python

Deno
Go
JavaScript (Node.js)
Rust

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

user defined functions and aggregates

yes

user defined functions

Triggers

yes

similar concept for controling cloud resources

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Automatic sharding

horizontal partitioning

none

yes

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

Multi-source replication in MPP-Cluster

Source-replica replication

yes

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

Kerberos/HDFS data loading

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency in MPP-Cluster

Immediate Consistency

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

not needed in graphs

yes

Transaction concepts

Support to ensure data integrity after non-atomic manipulations of data

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

optional: either by committing a write-ahead log (WAL) to the local persistent storage or by dumping the memory to a persistent storage

yes

In-memory capabilities

Is there an option to define some or all structures to be held in-memory only.

yes

User concepts

Access control

Access rights for users and roles

fine grained access rights according to SQL-standard

Users with fine-grained authorization concept, user roles and pluggable authentication

yes, based on authentication and database rules

More information provided by the system vendor

We invite representatives of system vendors to contact us for updating and extending the system information,
and for displaying vendor-provided information such as key customers, competitive advantages and market metrics.