Softwr

Databases · head to head

ClickHouse vs DynamoDB

ClickHouse logo

ClickHouse

Databases

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

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
DynamoDB logo

DynamoDB

Databases

AWS-only managed key-value and document database with fixed per-partition throughput limits and no ad hoc queries.

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; DynamoDB access patterns must be designed into the key schema before launch; a query nobody anticipated needs a new global secondary index, which is a full extra copy of the projected attributes billed as storage and as writes, or an offline migration.
  • They diverge on capability: ClickHouse covers Column-oriented Storage, DynamoDB covers Managed and serverless.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which ClickHouse and DynamoDB actually diverge.

Attributes where ClickHouse and DynamoDB differ
AttributeClickHouseDynamoDB
Pricing modelUnknownusage-based
PlatformsLinux, macOS, Windows (via Docker)AWS
Founded20212006

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

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 DynamoDB

  • Managed and serverless
  • Predictable latency
  • On-demand or provisioned capacity
  • Global secondary indexes
  • Transactions
  • DynamoDB Streams
  • Global tables
  • Point-in-time recovery

What people use each for

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

ClickHouse

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

DynamoDB

  • High-volume keyed workloads such as sessions, shopping carts, device state or user profiles where the access pattern is fixed and knownnot ClickHouse
  • Traffic that spikes unpredictably, where on-demand capacity absorbs a burst without a capacity-planning exercisenot ClickHouse
  • Serverless applications on Lambda, where an HTTP-based datastore avoids the connection pooling problem relational databases havenot ClickHouse
  • Event or telemetry ingestion where writes vastly outnumber reads and each record is retrieved by a known identifiernot 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

DynamoDB

  • Access patterns must be designed into the key schema before launch; a query nobody anticipated needs a new global secondary index, which is a full extra copy of the projected attributes billed as storage and as writes, or an offline migration.
  • Global secondary indexes are eventually consistent and cannot be read strongly, so a read-after-write against an index can legitimately miss the item that was just written, and application code must be written to tolerate that.
  • Per-partition throughput is capped at roughly 3,000 read and 1,000 write units, so a hot key throttles even when the table has spare capacity overall, and the only real fix is changing the key design to spread the load.
  • Items are limited to 400 KB and query results paginate at 1 MB, so large or list-shaped data has to be split, offloaded to S3 with a pointer, or read through pagination loops that complicate every consumer.
  • It runs only on AWS and the API is proprietary rather than a standard, so moving the data layer means rewriting it; ScyllaDB's Alternator is the only meaningfully compatible target and it brings a much smaller ecosystem.

Pricing, plan by plan

ClickHouse

Free

No published plan breakdown. See the ClickHouse review.

DynamoDB

Free
  • On-Demand Capacity$null/usage-based
    • Pay-per-request pricing with automatic scaling
    • Read: 0.5 RRU per 4 KB (eventually consistent), 1 RRU per 4 KB (strongly consistent), 2 RRU per 4 KB (transactional)
    • Write: 1 WRU per 1 KB
  • Provisioned Capacity$null/hourly
    • Fixed hourly charges based on reserved capacity
    • RCU rate: $0.00013 per hour (Standard)
    • WCU rate: $0.00065 per hour (Standard)
  • Standard Table Class Storage$0.25/per GB/month
    • $0.25 per GB/month after free tier
    • First 25 GB free per month (free tier)
  • Standard-Infrequent Access Table Class$0.1/per GB/month
    • $0.10 per GB/month

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 DynamoDB if

  • You need managed and serverless.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on AWS.
  • You also want predictable latency.
DynamoDB review

Questions people ask

Is ClickHouse or DynamoDB better?
Neither clearly leads. ClickHouse starts at Free and DynamoDB at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, ClickHouse or DynamoDB?
ClickHouse starts at Free and DynamoDB at Free.
Does ClickHouse or DynamoDB run on more platforms?
ClickHouse runs on Linux, macOS, Windows (via Docker). DynamoDB runs on AWS.
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 DynamoDB is typically brought in for.
What can ClickHouse do that DynamoDB cannot?
ClickHouse covers Column-oriented Storage, Real-time Analytics, SQL Support, Linear Scalability. DynamoDB covers Managed and serverless, Predictable latency, On-demand or provisioned capacity, Global secondary indexes.

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
DynamoDB: On-demand or provisioned capacity?

On-demand suits unpredictable or spiky traffic and removes capacity planning. Provisioned with autoscaling is considerably cheaper for steady high-volume workloads. Tables can be switched between them, though not arbitrarily often.

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
DynamoDB: Can I run DynamoDB outside AWS?

No. DynamoDB Local exists for development and testing only. For a production-compatible alternative elsewhere, ScyllaDB's Alternator implements the DynamoDB API, but it is a different system with a different ecosystem.

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
DynamoDB: Can I run ad hoc queries or analytics?

Not on the table itself. Scans are slow and expensive at scale. The usual pattern is to export to S3 or stream changes out and query them in Athena, Redshift or another analytical engine.

DynamoDB: Is single-table design necessary?

It is the pattern that gets the most from DynamoDB when access patterns are well known, because it lets related items be retrieved in one query. It also makes the model harder to evolve, so many teams reasonably choose multiple simpler tables and accept extra requests.

DynamoDB: What are the real limits I should design around?

400 KB per item, 1 MB per query or scan page, 100 items per transaction, roughly 3,000 read and 1,000 write units per partition, and eventual consistency on global secondary indexes.

Share

Related pages

More on ClickHouse

More on DynamoDB

Keep looking

Other head to heads