Softwr

Databases · head to head

DynamoDB vs Memcached

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
M

Memcached

Databases

Distributed memory object caching system

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

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.; Memcached no persistence at all: restart a node and its cache is gone, which every design must assume
  • They diverge on capability: DynamoDB covers Managed and serverless, Memcached covers In-memory key-value cache.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which DynamoDB and Memcached actually diverge.

Attributes where DynamoDB and Memcached differ
AttributeDynamoDBMemcached
Pricing modelusage-basedOpen source, no licence fee; managed cloud billed separately
PlatformsAWSLinux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Self-hosted
Founded2006Unknown

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 Memcached

  • In-memory key-value cache
  • Multithreaded
  • Client-side sharding
  • Predictable memory use

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 Memcached
  • Traffic that spikes unpredictably, where on-demand capacity absorbs a burst without a capacity-planning exercisenot Memcached
  • Serverless applications on Lambda, where an HTTP-based datastore avoids the connection pooling problem relational databases havenot Memcached
  • Event or telemetry ingestion where writes vastly outnumber reads and each record is retrieved by a known identifiernot Memcached

Memcached

  • Caching expensive database query results to cut loadnot DynamoDB
  • Session storage where losing sessions on restart is acceptablenot DynamoDB
  • Fronting an API whose responses are costly and change slowlynot 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.

Memcached

  • No persistence at all: restart a node and its cache is gone, which every design must assume
  • No replication or failover, so losing a node loses that share of the cache
  • Only simple key-value, with none of the lists, sorted sets or streams Redis offers
  • Values are capped at 1MB by default, which surprises teams caching large documents

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

Memcached

Free
  • MemcachedFree
    • Full functionality
    • Self-hosted
    • No usage limits

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.
DynamoDB review

Choose Memcached if

  • You need in-memory key-value cache.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Self-hosted.
  • You also want multithreaded.
Memcached review

Questions people ask

Is DynamoDB or Memcached better?
Neither clearly leads. DynamoDB starts at Free and Memcached at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, DynamoDB or Memcached?
DynamoDB starts at Free and Memcached at Free.
Does DynamoDB or Memcached run on more platforms?
DynamoDB runs on AWS. Memcached runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Self-hosted.
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 Memcached is typically brought in for.
What can DynamoDB do that Memcached cannot?
DynamoDB covers Managed and serverless, Predictable latency, On-demand or provisioned capacity, Global secondary indexes. Memcached covers In-memory key-value cache, Multithreaded, Client-side sharding, Predictable memory use.

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.

Memcached: Is Memcached free?

Yes, open source with no licence fee.

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.

Memcached: Memcached or Redis?

Memcached is a pure cache: simpler, multithreaded and very predictable. Redis adds persistence, replication and rich data structures, which is why it is the default choice unless you specifically want a cache and nothing more.

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.

Memcached: Does Memcached persist data?

No. Everything is in memory and lost on restart, by design.

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 DynamoDB

More on Memcached

Keep looking

Other head to heads