Softwr

Databases · head to head

Amazon Aurora vs FaunaDB

Amazon Aurora logo

Amazon Aurora

Databases

MySQL and PostgreSQL-compatible relational database built for the cloud

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
FaunaDB logo

FaunaDB

Databases

Document-relational database whose hosted service closed in 2025 and whose core is now unmaintained Apache 2.0 code.

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Amazon Aurora aurora requires AWS ecosystem knowledge and integration with other AWS services; FaunaDB the hosted service was wound down in 2025, so there is no managed Fauna to buy; every remaining user either operates a JVM cluster themselves or migrates, and both are projects rather than tasks.
  • They diverge on capability: Amazon Aurora covers MySQL/PostgreSQL Compatible, FaunaDB covers Document-relational model.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Amazon Aurora and FaunaDB actually diverge.

Attributes where Amazon Aurora and FaunaDB differ
AttributeAmazon AuroraFaunaDB
Pricing modelusage-basedfreemium
PlatformsAWS CloudWeb
Founded20062012

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 Amazon Aurora

  • MySQL/PostgreSQL Compatible
  • 5x MySQL Performance
  • Auto-scaling Storage
  • Global Database
  • Serverless v2
  • Multi-master
  • Fault Tolerant
  • AWS Lambda

Only in FaunaDB

  • Document-relational model
  • FQL v10
  • Distributed ACID transactions
  • HTTPS access
  • User-defined functions
  • Attribute-based access control
  • Document history
  • Event streaming

What people use each for

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

Amazon Aurora

  • Transaction processingnot FaunaDB
  • Data storagenot FaunaDB
  • Application backendnot FaunaDB
  • Reportingnot FaunaDB
  • Data analyticsnot FaunaDB

FaunaDB

  • Keeping an existing Fauna-backed application alive on self-hosted infrastructure while a migration is planned and fundednot Amazon Aurora
  • Extracting historical data from a Fauna dataset that can no longer be reached through the hosted APInot Amazon Aurora
  • Studying a production implementation of deterministic distributed transactions, since the full server source is now readable under Apache 2.0not Amazon Aurora
  • Forking the engine deliberately, where an organisation has JVM and distributed-systems staff and wants a document-relational store it fully controlsnot Amazon Aurora

Where each one falls short

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

Amazon Aurora

  • Aurora requires AWS ecosystem knowledge and integration with other AWS services
  • Pricing can become expensive with high-traffic applications using many read replicas
  • Limited support for non-relational data types compared to NoSQL alternatives

FaunaDB

  • The hosted service was wound down in 2025, so there is no managed Fauna to buy; every remaining user either operates a JVM cluster themselves or migrates, and both are projects rather than tasks.
  • The open-sourced repository has had no substantive activity since May 2025 and the drivers were frozen alongside it, so you inherit responsibility for security patches in a Scala distributed database that almost nobody else is running.
  • FQL has no wire or dialect compatibility with anything else, so migrating off is a rewrite of every query, index and access rule in the application rather than a data export.
  • No BI tool, ORM or CDC connector speaks FQL, so reporting and analytics always required exporting the data first, and that export tooling is now also unmaintained.
  • The community was small before the shutdown and has dispersed since, so operational answers, tuning advice and people who have run a Fauna cluster in anger are all scarce when something breaks.

Pricing, plan by plan

Amazon Aurora

Free
  • Serverless v2$0.12/hour
    • Auto-scaling
    • Pay per ACU
    • Instant scaling
  • Provisioned$29/month
    • Dedicated instances
    • Predictable performance
    • Reserved capacity

FaunaDB

Free
  • FreeFree
    • 100K read ops
    • 50K write ops
    • 1GB storage
  • Pro$25/month
    • Pay per use
    • Priority support
    • Advanced features

Which should you pick?

Choose Amazon Aurora if

  • You need mysql/postgresql compatible.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on AWS Cloud.
  • You also want 5x mysql performance.
Amazon Aurora review

Choose FaunaDB if

  • You need document-relational model.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You also want fql v10.
FaunaDB review

Questions people ask

Is Amazon Aurora or FaunaDB better?
Neither clearly leads. Amazon Aurora starts at Free and FaunaDB at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Amazon Aurora or FaunaDB?
Amazon Aurora starts at Free and FaunaDB at Free.
Does Amazon Aurora or FaunaDB run on more platforms?
Amazon Aurora runs on AWS Cloud. FaunaDB runs on Web.
Can I use Amazon Aurora for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Amazon Aurora best used for?
Amazon Aurora is most often used for transaction processing, data storage, application backend, reporting. Of those, transaction processing and data storage are not what FaunaDB is typically brought in for.
What can Amazon Aurora do that FaunaDB cannot?
Amazon Aurora covers MySQL/PostgreSQL Compatible, 5x MySQL Performance, Auto-scaling Storage, Global Database. FaunaDB covers Document-relational model, FQL v10, Distributed ACID transactions, HTTPS access.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Amazon Aurora: Is Amazon Aurora compatible with MySQL and PostgreSQL?

Yes, Amazon Aurora offers MySQL and PostgreSQL compatibility with full compatibility to their open-source counterparts, allowing you to migrate existing databases with standard tools.

Source
FaunaDB: Can I still sign up for Fauna as a service?

No. Fauna Inc. wound down the hosted service in 2025 and the company website is no longer serving. The only way to run Fauna now is to build and operate the open-sourced server yourself.

Amazon Aurora: What uptime SLA does Amazon Aurora provide?

Aurora is designed for up to 99.99% single-region uptime and 99.999% multi-region uptime with automatic failover.

Source
FaunaDB: What licence is the open-sourced code under?

Apache 2.0, with the copyright held by a FaunaDB Foundation. That is a permissive OSI licence with no competing-use clause, so you may run it, modify it and even offer it as a service.

Amazon Aurora: How much does Amazon Aurora cost?

Aurora uses serverless, usage-based pricing where you pay only for consumed capacity. Typical pricing ranges from $50-70 per month for minimal setups to $400-600 per month for small production clusters.

Source
FaunaDB: Is the open source version the same software that ran the cloud?

It is the core database engine. The control plane, billing, dashboard and multi-tenant operational tooling that made it a service are not part of the release, so you are running the engine, not the product.

Amazon Aurora: Can Amazon Aurora scale automatically?

Yes, Aurora automatically scales to match workload demands without performance degradation, supporting both read and write scaling.

Source
FaunaDB: What should I migrate to?

There is no drop-in target. Teams that valued the document model with relationships usually land on Postgres with JSONB, and teams that valued the serverless HTTP access pattern usually land on DynamoDB or a managed Postgres with an HTTP driver. Either way the query layer is rewritten.

Amazon Aurora: How many read replicas does Aurora support?

Aurora supports up to 15 low-latency read replicas for distributing read traffic across your application.

Source
FaunaDB: How hard is it to self-host?

It builds as a fat JAR and runs as a multi-node JVM cluster. There is an OPERATING.md, but no supported packaging, no operator, no upstream releases and no support contract, so budget for a distributed-systems engineer, not a container.

Share

Related pages

More on Amazon Aurora

More on FaunaDB

Keep looking

Other head to heads