DBMS > Hazelcast vs. Machbase Neo vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. RDFox

System Properties Comparison Hazelcast vs. Machbase Neo vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. Microsoft Azure Table Storage vs. RDFox

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

TimeSeries DBMS for AIoT and BigData

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

A Wide Column Store for rapid development using massive semi-structured datasets

High performance knowledge graph and semantic reasoning engine

Primary database model

Key-value store

Time Series DBMS

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Wide column store

Graph DBMS
RDF store

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

Spatial DBMS

Relational DBMS

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

Score	5.46
Rank	#61	Overall
	#7	Key-value stores

Score	0.17
Rank	#337	Overall
	#30	Time Series DBMS

Score	27.71
Rank	#27	Overall
	#4	Document stores
	#2	Graph DBMS
	#3	Key-value stores
	#3	Wide column stores

Score	4.04
Rank	#77	Overall
	#6	Wide column stores

Score	0.29
Rank	#300	Overall
	#24	Graph DBMS
	#13	RDF stores

Website

hazelcast.com

machbase.com

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/storage/tables

www.oxfordsemantic.tech

Technical documentation

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

machbase.com/dbms

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

docs.oxfordsemantic.tech

Developer

Hazelcast

Machbase

Microsoft

Oxford Semantic Technologies

Initial release

2008

2013

2014

2012

2017

Current release

5.3.6, November 2023

V8.0, August 2023

6.0, Septermber 2022

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

commercial

free test version available

commercial

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

Java

C++

Server operating systems

All OS with a Java VM

Linux
macOS
Windows

hosted

Linux
macOS
Windows

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

yes

RDF schemas

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON types

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

the object must implement a serialization strategy

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

gRPC
HTTP REST
JDBC
MQTT (Message Queue Telemetry Transport)
ODBC

DocumentDB API
Graph API (Gremlin)
MongoDB API
RESTful HTTP API
Table API

RESTful HTTP API

RESTful HTTP API
SPARQL 1.1

Supported programming languages

.Net
C#
C++
Clojure
Go
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
Python
Scala

C
C#
C++
Go
Java
JavaScript
PHP

via ODBC
Python
R

via ODBC
Scala

.Net
C#
Java
JavaScript
JavaScript (Node.js)
MongoDB client drivers written for various programming languages
Python

.Net
C#
C++
Java
JavaScript (Node.js)
PHP
Python
Ruby

C
Java

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

JavaScript

Triggers

yes

Events

JavaScript

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Replicated Map

selectable replication factor

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

yes

implicit feature of the cloud service. Replication either local, cross-facility or geo-redundant.

replication via a shared file system

MapReduce

Offers an API for user-defined Map/Reduce methods

yes

with Hadoop integration

Integration with Hadoop/HDInsight on Azure*

Consistency concepts

Methods to ensure consistency in a distributed system

Immediate Consistency or Eventual Consistency selectable by user

Raft Consensus Algorithm

Bounded Staleness
Consistent Prefix
Eventual Consistency
Immediate Consistency

Consistency level configurable on request level
Session Consistency

Immediate Consistency

Immediate Consistency in stand-alone mode, Eventual Consistency in replicated setups

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

Transaction concepts

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

one or two-phase-commit; repeatable reads; read commited

Multi-item ACID transactions with snapshot isolation within a partition

optimistic locking

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

volatile and lookup table

yes

User concepts

Access control

Role-based access control

simple password-based access control

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Access rights based on private key authentication or shared access signatures

Roles, resources, and access types

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.