Softwr

Databases · head to head

PlanetScale vs ScyllaDB

PlanetScale logo

PlanetScale

Databases

The MySQL-compatible serverless database

From
Free
Rated
-
ScyllaDB logo

ScyllaDB

Databases

The real-time big data database compatible with Cassandra

From
Free
Rated
-

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: PlanetScale pricing varies significantly across 17+ AWS and GCP regions; ScyllaDB enterprise tier requires custom quote from sales
  • They diverge on capability: PlanetScale covers Database Branching, ScyllaDB covers Cassandra Compatible.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 30 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which PlanetScale and ScyllaDB actually diverge.

Attributes where PlanetScale and ScyllaDB differ
AttributePlanetScaleScyllaDB
PlatformsCloud-hosted (AWS, GCP, Azure)Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Web
Founded20182015

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 PlanetScale

  • Database Branching
  • Non-blocking Schema Changes
  • Insights
  • Horizontal Scaling
  • Connection Pooling
  • Query Caching
  • Automatic Backups
  • Global Replication

Only in ScyllaDB

  • Cassandra Compatible
  • DynamoDB Compatible
  • 10x Throughput
  • Low Latency
  • Auto-tuning
  • Lightweight Transactions
  • Change Data Capture
  • Cassandra Drivers

Both cover

  • Web support

What people use each for

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

PlanetScale

  • MySQL-compatible applications requiring horizontal scalingnot ScyllaDB
  • PostgreSQL deployments with custom cluster configurationsnot ScyllaDB
  • Multi-region database deployments on AWS or GCPnot ScyllaDB
  • Applications requiring transparent sharding via Vitessnot ScyllaDB

ScyllaDB

  • Real-time applicationsnot PlanetScale
  • Content managementnot PlanetScale
  • User profilesnot PlanetScale
  • Mobile backendsnot PlanetScale
  • Cachingnot PlanetScale

Where each one falls short

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

PlanetScale

  • Pricing varies significantly across 17+ AWS and GCP regions
  • Additional costs for EBS storage beyond base tier, backup storage, and egress
  • Dedicated PgBouncer and replicas incur separate charges
  • Metal tier pricing increases sharply with larger configurations

ScyllaDB

  • Enterprise tier requires custom quote from sales
  • Pricing varies by cloud provider, storage, and instance configuration
  • Contracts available but commitment required for subscription discounts

Pricing, plan by plan

PlanetScale

Free
  • Postgres EBS Single-Node (ARM64 PS-5)$5/month
    • 512 MiB RAM
    • Single-node configuration
    • EBS storage included
  • Postgres EBS HA (ARM64 PS-5)$15/month
    • 512 MiB RAM
    • 3-node high-availability setup
    • 1 primary + 2 replicas
  • Postgres Metal (M-10)$50/month
    • 1/8 vCPU, 1 GiB RAM
    • 3-node HA configuration
    • 10 GiB NVMe storage included
  • Vitess Non-Metal 3-Node$39/month
    • Sharding-capable database
    • x86-64 architecture
    • 3-node configuration

ScyllaDB

Free
  • ScyllaDB Cloud Standard$null/variable
    • Usage-based billing: vCPU, RAM, NVMe SSD storage
    • 2-hour P1 support response time
    • 99.9% uptime SLA
  • ScyllaDB Cloud Professional$null/variable
    • Enterprise-grade scalability
    • 1-hour P1 support response
    • Enhanced features included
  • ScyllaDB Cloud Premium$null/variable
    • Custom security and networking
    • 15-minute P1 support response
    • 99.99% uptime SLA
  • ScyllaDB Enterprise$null/quote
    • Self-managed deployment
    • On-premise or private cloud
    • Custom quote required

Which should you pick?

Choose PlanetScale if

  • You need database branching.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Cloud-hosted (AWS, GCP, Azure).
  • You also want non-blocking schema changes.

Choose ScyllaDB if

  • You need cassandra compatible.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Web.
  • You also want dynamodb compatible.

Questions people ask

Is PlanetScale or ScyllaDB better?
Neither clearly leads. PlanetScale starts at Free and ScyllaDB at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, PlanetScale or ScyllaDB?
PlanetScale starts at Free and ScyllaDB at Free.
Does PlanetScale or ScyllaDB run on more platforms?
PlanetScale runs on Cloud-hosted (AWS, GCP, Azure). ScyllaDB runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Web.
Can I use PlanetScale for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is PlanetScale best used for?
PlanetScale is most often used for mysql-compatible applications requiring horizontal scaling, postgresql deployments with custom cluster configurations, multi-region database deployments on aws or gcp, applications requiring transparent sharding via vitess. Of those, mysql-compatible applications requiring horizontal scaling and postgresql deployments with custom cluster configurations are not what ScyllaDB is typically brought in for.
What can PlanetScale do that ScyllaDB cannot?
PlanetScale covers Database Branching, Non-blocking Schema Changes, Insights, Horizontal Scaling. ScyllaDB covers Cassandra Compatible, DynamoDB Compatible, 10x Throughput, Low Latency. Both handle Web support.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

PlanetScale: How much does a PlanetScale Postgres database cost per month?

PlanetScale Postgres pricing starts at $5/month for single-node ARM64 configurations with 512 MiB RAM and $15/month for the same specs in high-availability mode with 1 primary and 2 replicas. Metal tier starts at $50/month for M-10 configuration (1/8 vCPU, 1 GiB RAM). Exact pricing depends on cluster size, node architecture (ARM64 vs x86-64), storage configuration, and selected AWS/GCP region.

Source
ScyllaDB: How is ScyllaDB Cloud pricing calculated?

ScyllaDB Cloud uses transparent, resource-based billing based on instance type (vCPU and RAM), NVMe SSD storage, service plan tier, deployment model, and cloud provider costs.

Source
PlanetScale: Is there a free tier for PlanetScale?

PlanetScale offers a free tier for development and testing workloads. After free tier limits are reached, usage-based pricing applies starting at $5/month for the smallest Postgres single-node configuration, with costs scaling based on cluster size, compute, storage, and additional features like dedicated PgBouncer or replicas.

Source
ScyllaDB: Does ScyllaDB offer a free trial?

ScyllaDB offers a 30-day developer trial on smaller instances and a 48-hour production evaluation trial with full-grade instances.

Source
PlanetScale: What is the difference between PlanetScale ARM64 and x86-64 pricing?

ARM64 instances cost significantly less than x86-64 equivalents. For example, a Postgres EBS HA cluster with 512 MiB RAM costs $15/month on ARM64 but $39/month on x86-64. This pricing difference extends across all cluster sizes, with larger x86-64 configurations reaching up to $5,599/month compared to ARM64 alternatives.

Source
ScyllaDB: What cost savings are available for long-term ScyllaDB commitments?

ScyllaDB subscription contracts provide up to 70% or more in savings compared to on-demand hourly billing. 1-year and 3-year contract options are available.

Source
PlanetScale: What is included in a PlanetScale cluster price versus additional costs?

The advertised cluster price covers the base compute and configured storage. Additional charges apply for EBS storage beyond the base allocation, backup storage, data egress, optional dedicated PgBouncer connections, and replicas beyond the base high-availability configuration. Regional pricing varies across 17+ AWS and GCP zones.

Source
ScyllaDB: How much cheaper is ScyllaDB than DynamoDB?

Unlike DynamoDB which charges per read/write unit, ScyllaDB charges based on resource usage only, potentially delivering 50% or greater cost reduction for high-throughput workloads.

Source
Share

Related pages

Other head to heads