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 initial setup was simple."
"The most valuable feature of LocalDBis the connection between the application and DB."
"The solution is fast."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. The guidelines are very easy to follow. Maintenance is very easy and requires very little manpower."
"It's a very stable solution."
"Very stable relational database management system that offers ease of management, querying, and scaling. It has well-designed databases."
"The performance of SQL Server is perfect."
"We have found the feature that allows us to publish web applications to be valuable."
"The main feature of this solution is ease of use."
"The performance of the SQL Server is very good."
"The solution has proven to be very stable."
"The SQL Server is low maintenance, it does not require advanced technical skills to maintain or use it as you might in other similar database solutions. You need some knowledge on how to access the solution and how to query it but it is fairly straightforward."
"The initial setup is complex and requires a skilled person."
"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 internal connection features of LocalDB could improve."
"The ALM features can be improved, but the database by itself is reliable."
"The scalability is adequate but could improve."
"When we run into problems, it's usually during installation, and finding answers to the problem has been a nightmare because the documentation is terrible."
"The pricing and quality of the product could be improved."
"Performance could be improved. There could be more support to PHP-based websites and to providing direct plugins for connections, and the related services or application services could be improved."
"The solution could be more secure."
"The solution could offer better integration with other solutions - specifically Microsoft."
"The only item which I can list is application failure during Integration Services debugging, when restarting a process flow. In a number of instances the solutions fails. I have not given this much thought and simply stop and start the debugging service rather than restarting."
"The upgrades are unstable."
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, Infobright DB, Oracle Database In-Memory and Tibero, 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.