DBMS > Hazelcast vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. OrigoDB vs. Realm vs. SWC-DB

System Properties Comparison Hazelcast vs. Microsoft Azure Cosmos DB vs. OrigoDB vs. Realm vs. SWC-DB

Editorial information provided by DB-Engines

Name

Description

A widely adopted in-memory data grid

Globally distributed, horizontally scalable, multi-model database service

A fully ACID in-memory object graph database

A DBMS built for use on mobile devices that’s a fast, easy to use alternative to SQLite and Core Data

A high performance, scalable Wide Column DBMS

Primary database model

Key-value store

Document store
Graph DBMS
Key-value store
Wide column store

Document store
Object oriented DBMS

Document store

Wide column store

Secondary database models

Document store

JSON support with IMDG 3.12

Spatial DBMS

Time Series DBMS

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

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

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

Score	0.06
Rank	#380	Overall
	#50	Document stores
	#18	Object oriented DBMS

Score	7.41
Rank	#52	Overall
	#8	Document stores

Score	0.08
Rank	#364	Overall
	#13	Wide column stores

Website

hazelcast.com

azure.microsoft.com/services/cosmos-db

origodb.com

realm.io

github.com/kashirin-alex/swc-db
www.swcdb.org

Technical documentation

hazelcast.org/imdg/docs

learn.microsoft.com/azure/cosmos-db

origodb.com/docs

realm.io/docs

Developer

Hazelcast

Microsoft

Robert Friberg et al

Realm, acquired by MongoDB in May 2019

Alex Kashirin

Initial release

2008

2014

2009

under the name LiveDB

2014

2020

Current release

5.3.6, November 2023

0.5, April 2021

License

Commercial or Open Source

Open Source

Apache Version 2; commercial licenses available

commercial

Open Source

GPL V3

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

hosted

Linux
Windows

Android
Backend: server-less
iOS
Windows

Linux

Data scheme

schema-free

yes

schema-free

Typing

predefined data types such as float or date

yes

JSON types

User defined using .NET types and collections

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

can be achieved using .NET

Secondary indexes

yes

All properties auto-indexed by default

yes

SQL

Support of SQL

SQL-like query language

APIs and other access methods

JCache
JPA
Memcached protocol
RESTful HTTP API

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

.NET Client API
HTTP API
LINQ

Proprietary protocol
Thrift

Supported programming languages

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

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

.Net

.Net
Java

with Android only
Objective-C
React Native
Swift

C++

Server-side scripts

Stored procedures

yes

Event Listeners, Executor Services

JavaScript

yes

runs within the applications so server-side scripts are unnecessary

Triggers

yes

Events

JavaScript

yes

Domain Events

yes

Change Listeners

Partitioning methods

Methods for storing different data on different nodes

Sharding

Implicit feature of the cloud service

horizontal partitioning

client side managed; servers are not synchronized

none

Sharding

Replication methods

Methods for redundantly storing data on multiple nodes

yes

Replicated Map

yes

Implicit feature of the cloud service

Source-replica replication

none

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

Foreign keys

Referential integrity

depending on model

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

ACID

Concurrency

Support for concurrent manipulation of data

yes

Durability

Support for making data persistent

yes

Write ahead log

yes

In-memory capabilities

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

yes

In-Memory realm

User concepts

Access control

Role-based access control

Access rights can be defined down to the item level

Role based authorization

yes

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.