Databases · head to head
DynamoDB vs Google Cloud SQL

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

Google Cloud SQL
Databases
Fully managed relational database service for MySQL, PostgreSQL, and SQL Server
- 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.; Google Cloud SQL locked into Google Cloud ecosystem with limited cross-cloud portability
- They diverge on capability: DynamoDB covers Managed and serverless, Google Cloud SQL covers High Availability.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which DynamoDB and Google Cloud SQL actually diverge.
| Attribute | DynamoDB | Google Cloud SQL |
|---|---|---|
| Platforms | AWS | Google Cloud Platform |
| Founded | 2006 | 2008 |
Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (usage-based), 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 Google Cloud SQL
- High Availability
- Automated Backups
- Point-in-time Recovery
- Encryption
- Regional/Zonal Instances
- Read Replicas
- Private IP
- BigQuery
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 Google Cloud SQL
- Traffic that spikes unpredictably, where on-demand capacity absorbs a burst without a capacity-planning exercisenot Google Cloud SQL
- Serverless applications on Lambda, where an HTTP-based datastore avoids the connection pooling problem relational databases havenot Google Cloud SQL
- Event or telemetry ingestion where writes vastly outnumber reads and each record is retrieved by a known identifiernot Google Cloud SQL
Google Cloud SQL
- Transaction processingnot DynamoDB
- Data storagenot DynamoDB
- Application backendnot DynamoDB
- Reportingnot DynamoDB
- Data analyticsnot 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.
Google Cloud SQL
- Locked into Google Cloud ecosystem with limited cross-cloud portability
- Pay-as-you-go pricing can become expensive with unpredictable workloads
- Limited customization options compared to self-managed databases
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
Google Cloud SQL
Free- Free TierFree
- db-f1-micro instance
- 30GB storage
- Limited usage
- Standard$25/month
- High availability
- Automated backups
- Point-in-time recovery
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 Google Cloud SQL if
- You need high availability.
- You want to start without paying.
- You work on Google Cloud Platform.
- You also want automated backups.
Questions people ask
- Is DynamoDB or Google Cloud SQL better?
- Neither clearly leads. DynamoDB starts at Free and Google Cloud SQL at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, DynamoDB or Google Cloud SQL?
- DynamoDB starts at Free and Google Cloud SQL at Free.
- Does DynamoDB or Google Cloud SQL run on more platforms?
- DynamoDB runs on AWS. Google Cloud SQL runs on Google Cloud Platform.
- 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 Google Cloud SQL is typically brought in for.
- What can DynamoDB do that Google Cloud SQL cannot?
- DynamoDB covers Managed and serverless, Predictable latency, On-demand or provisioned capacity, Global secondary indexes. Google Cloud SQL covers High Availability, Automated Backups, Point-in-time Recovery, Encryption.
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.
Google Cloud SQL: What database engines does Google Cloud SQL support?
Google Cloud SQL supports MySQL, PostgreSQL, and SQL Server. Users can choose their preferred engine when provisioning an instance and Google handles automated backups, replication, patching, and scaling.
SourceDynamoDB: 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.
Google Cloud SQL: Does Google Cloud SQL have a free tier?
Google Cloud SQL does not have a free tier, though new users receive free trial credits from Google Cloud Platform. Pricing is based on compute resources (CPU and memory) and storage used, with options for committed use discounts.
SourceDynamoDB: 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.
Google Cloud SQL: Can Google Cloud SQL scale automatically?
Yes. Cloud SQL automatically scales database storage and compute resources to handle increased workloads without manual intervention, and includes automated backups and high availability configurations.
SourceDynamoDB: 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.
Related pages
More on Google Cloud SQL
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 EMQX
- DynamoDB vs Firebase Realtime Database
- DynamoDB vs CouchDB
- DynamoDB vs Amazon RDS
- DynamoDB vs Azure SQL
- DynamoDB vs Aiven
- DynamoDB vs MariaDB
- DynamoDB vs ArangoDB
- DynamoDB vs Canary Labs
- DynamoDB vs Chroma
- DynamoDB vs Cloudinary
- DynamoDB vs Convex
- DynamoDB vs Dgraph
- DynamoDB vs Amazon Aurora
- DynamoDB vs Microsoft SQL Server
- DynamoDB vs Amazon Redshift
- Google Cloud SQL vs Elasticsearch
- Google Cloud SQL vs Cassandra
- Google Cloud SQL vs Cockroach Labs
- Google Cloud SQL vs Airtable
- Google Cloud SQL vs PostgreSQL
- Google Cloud SQL vs BigQuery
- Google Cloud SQL vs FaunaDB
- Google Cloud SQL vs Memcached
- Google Cloud SQL vs ScyllaDB
- Google Cloud SQL vs PlanetScale
- Google Cloud SQL vs Couchbase
- Google Cloud SQL vs CosmosDB
- Google Cloud SQL vs DataStax
- Google Cloud SQL vs dbt
- Google Cloud SQL vs EMQX
- Google Cloud SQL vs Firebase Realtime Database
- Google Cloud SQL vs CouchDB
- Google Cloud SQL vs Amazon RDS
- Google Cloud SQL vs Azure SQL
- Google Cloud SQL vs Aiven
- Google Cloud SQL vs MariaDB
- Google Cloud SQL vs ArangoDB
- Google Cloud SQL vs Canary Labs
- Google Cloud SQL vs Chroma
- Google Cloud SQL vs Cloudinary
- Google Cloud SQL vs Convex
- Google Cloud SQL vs Dgraph
- Google Cloud SQL vs Amazon Aurora
- Google Cloud SQL vs Microsoft SQL Server
- Google Cloud SQL vs Amazon Redshift
