AI Indexes
IT AI Index
Index › Data platform › NoSQL › ScyllaDB vs PostgreSQL
NoSQL databases · October 2026 Edition

ScyllaDB vs PostgreSQL

Zero of fourteen models named ScyllaDB first on the direct prompt; zero named PostgreSQL. ScyllaDB was named by ten of the fourteen models and PostgreSQL by nine and ScyllaDB carries 21 labels and PostgreSQL 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.

ScyllaDB

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

PostgreSQL

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

First-choice share2%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#6A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels2111A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, ScyllaDB reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.MongoDB was named alongside these two in fourteen of the fourteen direct answers. MongoDB vs ScyllaDB · MongoDB vs PostgreSQL · Amazon DynamoDB vs ScyllaDB

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the nosql databases page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ScyllaDBFirst choices, of fourteen modelsPostgreSQL
Direct00
Paraphrase00
Comparative00
Budget-constrained10
Scale-constrained01
Negative01
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where ScyllaDB and PostgreSQL stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
ScyllaDB PostgreSQL first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, ScyllaDB on the left and PostgreSQL on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where ScyllaDB and PostgreSQL stood in it.

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
DeepSeek V4 FlashMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, PostgreSQL
Qwen 3.7 FlashMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, Neo4j, PostgreSQL
GPT-6 LunaMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, PostgreSQL

Neither was named

11 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5MongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, Google Cloud Firestore, PostgreSQL with JSON
GPT-5.4 miniMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, Apache Cassandra
Gemini 3.5 FlashMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, Couchbase
Perplexity SonarMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, Azure Cosmos DB
Grok 4.1 FastMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, Apache Cassandra
Mistral SmallAmazon DynamoDB, MongoDB alternatives: Azure Cosmos DB, Redis
Llama 4 MaverickMongoDB
Kimi K2MongoDB alternatives: Couchbase
GLM 4.7 FlashXMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, Apache Cassandra, Couchbase
MiniMax M2.5MongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB, Couchbase
Muse Glimmer 30BMongoDB alternatives: Amazon DynamoDB

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
PostgreSQL leads by five points.
PostgreSQL5%#4 of 10
ScyllaDB0%#– of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
ScyllaDB2%#5 of 13
PostgreSQL2%#6 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
The order flips: ScyllaDB leads at enterprise.
ScyllaDB2%#6 of 9
PostgreSQL0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about ScyllaDB

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“I'd recommend starting with MongoDB Atlas or ScyllaDB as they balance cost, performance, and ease of use” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“ScyllaDB is a drop-in compatible, faster version of Cassandra that is often lighter on hardware resources” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · alternative
“these top DB-Engines (scores 1000+), have enterprise backing, and regular patches” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · alternative

What the models said about PostgreSQL

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.

“Before choosing any NoSQL database, ask yourself: "Why can't I use PostgreSQL?"” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
“If your data is highly normalized and relational ... stick to Postgres.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“modern trends suggest looking at PostgreSQL (specifically with JSONB) as the ultimate hybrid solution” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · alternative
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.