We compared SQL Server and LocalDB based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
In summary, SQL Server is praised for its robustness, support, pricing, ROI, and areas for improvement, while LocalDB is valued for its ease of installation, support, affordability, ROI, and enhancement opportunities. SQL Server excels in handling large datasets and security measures, while LocalDB is adept at managing small databases and integration with Visual Studio. Both products offer efficient performance and seamless integration with Microsoft tools, but SQL Server caters more towards businesses with complex data needs, while LocalDB is ideal for smaller-scale projects.
Features: SQL Server's most valuable features include robustness, efficient handling of large data, comprehensive security measures, seamless integration with Microsoft products, and excellent performance. In contrast, LocalDB excels in ease of installation, compatibility with Visual Studio, and efficient performance with small databases. Both products offer seamless integration with Microsoft tools.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for SQL Server is considered straightforward and efficient, with flexible licensing options to accommodate different business needs. On the other hand, LocalDB has no setup costs and offers a permissive license, allowing for easy integration into projects without any restrictions., The ROI from SQL Server is highly satisfactory, with significant improvements in efficiency, data management, and cost savings. On the other hand, LocalDB offers time-saving benefits, improved efficiency, and cost avoidance.
Room for Improvement: SQL Server users emphasize the need for improvements in usability, performance optimization, compatibility, query handling, security features, and efficient handling of large datasets. LocalDB users suggest enhancements in database performance, system stability, user-friendly features, and operating system compatibility.
Deployment and customer support: The feedback on SQL Server indicates that the time required for establishing the tech solution varies, with some users spending three months on deployment and an additional week on setup, while others mention a week for both. In contrast, the feedback on LocalDB emphasizes considering the context of each user's experience, taking into account the separate phases of deployment and setup., Customers have found the customer service for SQL Server commendable and reliable, while LocalDB offers highly satisfactory, efficient, and reliable support. Both have prompt assistance and issue resolution, but SQL Server is praised for its helpfulness and overall assistance, while LocalDB is commended for its friendly and knowledgeable staff.
The summary above is based on 38 interviews we conducted recently with SQL Server and LocalDB users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The most valuable feature of LocalDBis the connection between the application and DB."
"The initial setup was simple."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The guidelines are very easy to follow. Maintenance is very easy and requires very little manpower."
"The solution is fast."
"We found it to be quite scalable."
"The availability is the most valuable feature. It has high availability. It also has good performance."
"Easy to implement and user-friendly relational database management system. This product is stable and scalable."
"SQL Server stands out due to its robust parallel processing capabilities."
"The installation was straightforward. We did not have a large installation and it took a couple of weeks to complete."
"SQL Server is quite stable. And now we are using the Lattice 2017 version."
"The solution offers very high performance."
"I use it to fine tune my procedures and functions."
"The solution needs to create a management tool. Right now, the solution has tools for creating a local installation, but it's too simplistic. We need something that's a bit more complex so that we can extend the tools with our scripts."
"The initial setup is complex and requires a skilled person."
"The ALM features can be improved, but the database by itself is reliable."
"The internal connection features of LocalDB could improve."
"The UX design of this system needs improvement."
"The solution could offer more integration with other platforms."
"Scalability of the database could be improved if it could handle increased volumes of data."
"In some cases it is quite difficult, like the lack of ease of the replication and other issues. They have to improve on that. They do not have features like "always on," which is complicated."
"I would like to see more integration with other platforms."
"SQL Server could integrate better with other platforms."
"I would like to see the database become fully automated."
"Its support for JSON should be improved. It does support JSON, but the support is not good enough currently. They should also improve the way indexes work. Its performance can also be improved because sometimes it becomes very slow for certain table designs. It cannot have more than a certain amount of data. As compared to other databases, its capability to handle large volumes of data is not very good."
LocalDB is ranked 15th in Relational Databases Tools with 5 reviews while SQL Server is ranked 1st in Relational Databases Tools with 260 reviews. LocalDB is rated 9.0, while SQL Server is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of LocalDB writes "Good for the development process, generally stable, and easy to set up". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SQL Server writes "Easy to use and provides good speed and data recovery". LocalDB is most compared with MySQL, Oracle Database In-Memory, Infobright DB, Tibero and Oracle Database, whereas SQL Server is most compared with MariaDB, SAP HANA, Oracle Database, IBM Db2 Database and Teradata. See our LocalDB vs. SQL Server report.
See our list of best Relational Databases Tools vendors.
We monitor all Relational Databases Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.