# Cassandra vs ScyllaDB for high-throughput writes: which wide column database do data engineering teams find easier to operate in production?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">I've been comparing Cassandra and ScyllaDB specifically for high-throughput write workloads and, just as importantly, which one data engineering teams find less painful to run in production. Both sit in the <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/wide-column-database">Wide Column Database category</a> and share the same data model and query language (ScyllaDB is Cassandra-compatible), so this is a genuine apples-to-apples comparison; the difference is in the engine and the operational experience.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/scylladb/reviews"><strong>ScyllaDB</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Reviewers consistently credit its C++ shard-per-core design with high write throughput and predictable low latency on fewer nodes, plus auto-tuning that cuts DBA overhead. The catch is a steep initial learning curve around data modeling and cluster tuning.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/cassandra/reviews"><strong>Cassandra</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Reviewers praise its write throughput and battle-tested maturity, with a large community and broad compatibility that ease hiring and troubleshooting. The operational costs they raise are JVM-related tuning, high node/RAM requirements, and specialized DevOps knowledge (compaction, tombstones).</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">The pattern in the reviews: ScyllaDB tends to win on raw performance-per-node and lower steady-state ops, while Cassandra wins on maturity, community, and ecosystem, at higher operational overhead. One reviewer put it directly: Scylla edges performance, but Cassandra is more established with better compatibility. For teams who've run both in production for high writes, which was genuinely easier to operate day to day, and did Scylla's performance edge justify the migration effort?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 2 months ago
- Author title: Marketing
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;ScyllaDB&#39;s performance edge is real but so is the migration cost. If you&#39;re already running Cassandra at scale with a team that knows it, &quot;easier to operate&quot; probably still goes to Cassandra just because of institutional knowledge. Scylla makes more sense as a greenfield choice or if your current Cassandra cluster is genuinely hitting limits you can&#39;t solve by adding nodes.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: about 2 months ago
- Author title: SEO Content Specialist





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4