Softwr

Software · head to head

ClickHouse vs CosmosDB

ClickHouse logo

ClickHouse

Software

Fast open-source column-oriented database for real-time analytics

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
CosmosDB logo

CosmosDB

Software

Globally distributed, multi-model database service from Azure

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: ClickHouse limited multi-row atomic transactions and expensive UPDATE/DELETE operations unsuitable for transactional systems; CosmosDB autoscale provisioned throughput enforces a minimum of 1,000 RU/s, billed hourly whether or not the database is used
  • They diverge on capability: ClickHouse covers Column-oriented Storage, CosmosDB covers Global Distribution.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which ClickHouse and CosmosDB actually diverge.

Attributes where ClickHouse and CosmosDB differ
AttributeClickHouseCosmosDB
Pricing modelUnknownusage-based
PlatformsLinux, macOS, Windows (via Docker)Web, Azure
Founded20211975

Identical on both: starting price (Free), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Unknown).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in ClickHouse

  • Column-oriented Storage
  • Real-time Analytics
  • SQL Support
  • Linear Scalability
  • Data Compression
  • Vectorized Query Execution
  • Approximate Calculations
  • Kafka

Only in CosmosDB

  • Global Distribution
  • Multi-model APIs
  • Elastic Scaling
  • Five Consistency Levels
  • SLA-backed Latency
  • Automatic Indexing
  • Serverless
  • Azure Functions

Both cover

  • Web support

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

ClickHouse

  • Business intelligencenot CosmosDB
  • Data warehousingnot CosmosDB
  • Real-time analyticsnot CosmosDB
  • Reportingnot CosmosDB
  • Machine learningnot CosmosDB

CosmosDB

  • Running a globally distributed multi model database on Azurenot ClickHouse
  • Serving low latency reads and writes from multiple Azure regionsnot ClickHouse
  • Storing document, key value and graph data behind a managed servicenot ClickHouse

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

ClickHouse

  • Limited multi-row atomic transactions and expensive UPDATE/DELETE operations unsuitable for transactional systems
  • Requires upfront schema design discipline with MergeTree engine choices and sort/partition keys
  • Experimental vector search support, not production-ready for vector operations
  • Different query syntax from standard SQL requiring migration planning
  • Limited JOIN capabilities compared to traditional relational databases
  • Migration complexity with 2-4 weeks estimated for data type mapping and query translation

CosmosDB

  • Autoscale provisioned throughput enforces a minimum of 1,000 RU/s, billed hourly whether or not the database is used
  • Provisioned throughput is charged in every region the account is replicated to, so multi region accounts multiply the RU bill
  • Storage charges cover data, indexes and backups in each replicated region
  • Egress out of Azure and between regions is charged, though ingress is free
  • The free allowance is one account per Azure subscription, limited to 1,000 RU/s and 25 GB
  • RU/s rates vary by region and are only shown through the pricing calculator rather than a flat published rate

Pricing, plan by plan

ClickHouse

Free

No published plan breakdown. See the ClickHouse review.

CosmosDB

Free
  • Free TierFree
    • 1000 RU/s
    • 25GB storage
    • First 12 months
  • ServerlessFree
    • Pay per request
    • Auto-scaling
    • Event-driven workloads

Which should you pick?

Choose ClickHouse if

  • You need column-oriented storage.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows (via Docker).
  • You also want real-time analytics.
ClickHouse review

Choose CosmosDB if

  • You need global distribution.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, Azure.
  • You also want multi-model apis.
CosmosDB review

Questions people ask

Is ClickHouse or CosmosDB better?
Neither clearly leads. ClickHouse starts at Free and CosmosDB at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, ClickHouse or CosmosDB?
ClickHouse starts at Free and CosmosDB at Free.
Does ClickHouse or CosmosDB run on more platforms?
ClickHouse runs on Linux, macOS, Windows (via Docker). CosmosDB runs on Web, Azure.
Can I use ClickHouse for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is ClickHouse best used for?
ClickHouse is most often used for business intelligence, data warehousing, real-time analytics, reporting. Of those, business intelligence and data warehousing are not what CosmosDB is typically brought in for.
What can ClickHouse do that CosmosDB cannot?
ClickHouse covers Column-oriented Storage, Real-time Analytics, SQL Support, Linear Scalability. CosmosDB covers Global Distribution, Multi-model APIs, Elastic Scaling, Five Consistency Levels. Both handle Web support.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

ClickHouse: What is ClickHouse best used for?

ClickHouse is optimized for analytical workloads on large datasets. It excels at fast aggregations and queries, being 10-100x faster than PostgreSQL on large aggregations.

Source
ClickHouse: Does ClickHouse support transactions?

ClickHouse has limited transaction support and expensive UPDATE/DELETE operations. It is not suitable for transactional workloads requiring strict ACID guarantees.

Source
ClickHouse: How does ClickHouse compare to PostgreSQL?

ClickHouse is 10-100x faster for analytics but PostgreSQL is better for transactional workloads. Many teams use both: PostgreSQL for writes via MaterializedPostgreSQL replication to ClickHouse for analytics.

Source
ShareXLinkedInRedditWhatsAppEmail

Related pages

More on ClickHouse

More on CosmosDB

Keep looking

Other head to heads