Databases · head to head
DynamoDB vs EMQX

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

EMQX
Databases
Erlang MQTT broker for large IoT fleets, relicensed to BSL with production free use limited to one node
- From
- Free
- Rated
- -
The short version
- Each has a real cost: 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.; EMQX the move to Business Source Licence 1.1 at version 5.9 in May 2025 limits free production use to a single node, so the clustering that justifies choosing EMQX now requires a paid subscription from the second node onward.
- They diverge on capability: DynamoDB covers Managed and serverless, EMQX covers Erlang clustering.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which DynamoDB and EMQX actually diverge.
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 DynamoDB
- Managed and serverless
- Predictable latency
- On-demand or provisioned capacity
- Global secondary indexes
- Transactions
- DynamoDB Streams
- Global tables
- Point-in-time recovery
Only in EMQX
- Erlang clustering
- MQTT 5.0 and QUIC
- Rule engine
- Data integration sinks
- Session persistence
- Multi protocol gateways
- Authentication and authorisation
- Dashboard and REST API
What people use each for
The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.
DynamoDB
- High-volume keyed workloads such as sessions, shopping carts, device state or user profiles where the access pattern is fixed and knownnot EMQX
- Traffic that spikes unpredictably, where on-demand capacity absorbs a burst without a capacity-planning exercisenot EMQX
- Serverless applications on Lambda, where an HTTP-based datastore avoids the connection pooling problem relational databases havenot EMQX
- Event or telemetry ingestion where writes vastly outnumber reads and each record is retrieved by a known identifiernot EMQX
EMQX
- A connected vehicle platform needing millions of persistent MQTT sessions with QUIC for handover across mobile networksnot DynamoDB
- An industrial operator routing sensor telemetry straight into TimescaleDB or Kafka without writing a consumer servicenot DynamoDB
- An IoT product team that has outgrown a single Mosquitto instance and needs clustering and shared subscriptionsnot DynamoDB
- A smart building deployment mixing MQTT, CoAP and LwM2M devices on one brokernot DynamoDB
Where each one falls short
Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.
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.
EMQX
- The move to Business Source Licence 1.1 at version 5.9 in May 2025 limits free production use to a single node, so the clustering that justifies choosing EMQX now requires a paid subscription from the second node onward.
- The relicensing arrived in a minor release, which caught users who had pinned to 5.x expecting Apache 2.0 terms and forced legal review of existing deployments.
- Running an Erlang/OTP cluster well requires operational knowledge most teams do not have, and diagnosing distribution, mnesia or memory issues means learning a runtime you use for nothing else.
- Enterprise pricing is quoted rather than published for the self-managed edition, so the cost of the clustered configuration you actually need is invisible until you talk to sales.
- The Serverless tier caps at around a thousand connections and shares infrastructure, which makes it a prototyping tier rather than a genuine small production option.
Pricing, plan by plan
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
EMQX
Free- Open Source single nodeFree
- BSL 1.1 licence since version 5.9
- Free production use of one node only
- All former enterprise features visible
- ServerlessFree
- Free monthly quota then pay as you go
- Up to 1,000 connections
- 8 by 5 support
- Dedicated Flex$234/month
- Single tenant cluster
- Traffic allowance included
- 24/7 support
- Enterprise self-managed$undefined/year
- Deploy on premises, at the edge or in any cloud
- Clustering licensed
- 256 MB maximum message size
Which should you pick?
Choose DynamoDB if
- You need managed and serverless.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on AWS.
- You also want predictable latency.
Choose EMQX if
- You need erlang clustering.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud, macOS.
- You also want mqtt 5.0 and quic.
Questions people ask
- Is DynamoDB or EMQX better?
- Neither clearly leads. DynamoDB starts at Free and EMQX at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, DynamoDB or EMQX?
- DynamoDB starts at Free and EMQX at Free.
- Does DynamoDB or EMQX run on more platforms?
- DynamoDB runs on AWS. EMQX runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud, macOS.
- Can I use DynamoDB for free?
- Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
- What is DynamoDB best used for?
- DynamoDB is most often used for high-volume keyed workloads such as sessions, shopping carts, device state or user profiles where the access pattern is fixed and known, traffic that spikes unpredictably, where on-demand capacity absorbs a burst without a capacity-planning exercise, serverless applications on lambda, where an http-based datastore avoids the connection pooling problem relational databases have, event or telemetry ingestion where writes vastly outnumber reads and each record is retrieved by a known identifier. Of those, high-volume keyed workloads such as sessions, shopping carts, device state or user profiles where the access pattern is fixed and known and traffic that spikes unpredictably, where on-demand capacity absorbs a burst without a capacity-planning exercise are not what EMQX is typically brought in for.
- What can DynamoDB do that EMQX cannot?
- DynamoDB covers Managed and serverless, Predictable latency, On-demand or provisioned capacity, Global secondary indexes. EMQX covers Erlang clustering, MQTT 5.0 and QUIC, Rule engine, Data integration sinks.
Answered from the vendors’ own pages
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.
EMQX: Is EMQX still open source?
Not in the OSI sense since version 5.9. It is source-available under Business Source Licence 1.1, reverting to Apache 2.0 four years after each release.
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.
EMQX: Can I run a free cluster?
No. The additional use grant permits free production use of one node; clustering requires a commercial licence.
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.
EMQX: What changed for existing users?
Community and enterprise editions merged, so all features are now visible, but the licence terms tightened in the same minor release.
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.
EMQX: Which version is still Apache 2.0?
Releases before 5.9 remain under Apache 2.0, and each BSL release converts to Apache 2.0 four years after publication.
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.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- DynamoDB vs Elasticsearch
- DynamoDB vs Cassandra
- DynamoDB vs Cockroach Labs
- DynamoDB vs Airtable
- DynamoDB vs PostgreSQL
- DynamoDB vs BigQuery
- DynamoDB vs FaunaDB
- DynamoDB vs Memcached
- DynamoDB vs ScyllaDB
- DynamoDB vs PlanetScale
- DynamoDB vs Couchbase
- DynamoDB vs CosmosDB
- DynamoDB vs DataStax
- DynamoDB vs dbt
- DynamoDB vs Firebase Realtime Database
- DynamoDB vs CouchDB
- DynamoDB vs VerneMQ
- DynamoDB vs RabbitMQ
- DynamoDB vs NATS
- DynamoDB vs Solace PubSub+
- DynamoDB vs Canary Labs
- DynamoDB vs TIBCO Enterprise Message Service
- DynamoDB vs TimescaleDB
- DynamoDB vs Turso
- DynamoDB vs Chroma
- DynamoDB vs DuckDB
- DynamoDB vs Teradata
- DynamoDB vs Apache Kafka
- DynamoDB vs Immuta
- DynamoDB vs MariaDB
- DynamoDB vs Materialize
- DynamoDB vs Oracle Database
- EMQX vs Elasticsearch
- EMQX vs Cassandra
- EMQX vs Cockroach Labs
- EMQX vs Airtable
- EMQX vs PostgreSQL
- EMQX vs BigQuery
- EMQX vs FaunaDB
- EMQX vs Memcached
- EMQX vs ScyllaDB
- EMQX vs PlanetScale
- EMQX vs Couchbase
- EMQX vs CosmosDB
- EMQX vs DataStax
- EMQX vs dbt
- EMQX vs Firebase Realtime Database
- EMQX vs CouchDB
- EMQX vs VerneMQ
- EMQX vs RabbitMQ
- EMQX vs NATS
- EMQX vs Solace PubSub+
- EMQX vs Canary Labs
- EMQX vs TIBCO Enterprise Message Service
- EMQX vs TimescaleDB
- EMQX vs Turso
- EMQX vs Chroma
- EMQX vs DuckDB
- EMQX vs Teradata
- EMQX vs Apache Kafka
- EMQX vs Immuta
- EMQX vs MariaDB
- EMQX vs Materialize
- EMQX vs Oracle Database
