TechTarget
techtarget.com › searchcloudcomputing › tip › When-to-use-Amazon-RDS-vs-Redshift
When to use Amazon RDS vs. Redshift | TechTarget
But there are production-ready options that customers can deploy for less than $1,000, such as an RDS MySQL r5.2xlarge. In the case of Amazon Aurora Serverless, costs are mainly driven by the amount of Aurora Capacity Units (ACUs). Factors that determine Redshift pricing are deployed compute capacity, storage, backups and data transfer across different regions.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/aws › rds vs aurora big price difference
r/aws on Reddit: RDS vs Aurora big price difference
May 10, 2020 -
Difference between RDS and Aurora, when hosting Java application with PostgreSQL database.
Here i have my estimated pricing for using RDS. I suppose this is a separate server for actually hosting the database (hence the price) I found this alternative Aurora, which seemed a little bit better in regards to pricing.
This is much cheaper and also allows for almost the same amount of data (and up 1 million requests).
Can anyone explain to me the major differences in regards to these two services?
Top answer 1 of 5
62
Hello, PM for Amazon RDS and Aurora here. We recommend Amazon Aurora Serverless for bursty workloads that spike up/down frequently. Think an e-commerce website which gets a lot of traffic on weekends and nothing on weekdays. Our customers love not having to scale the database to account for the surge or drop in traffic. Amazon RDS and "regular" Amazon Aurora are for workloads that need sustained throughput. Think a search website which gets traffic throughout the day/week etc. Hope that helps!
2 of 5
8
Aurora is more than just serverless. Serverless is good for bursting or dynamic workloads. Regular aurora gives you managed updates, scaling, separate data and compute plane, etc. It is way more managed than RDS
15:39
Databases on AWS Explained (RDS, DynamoDB, Redshift, Aurora) - YouTube
57:31
AWS re:Invent 2024 - Analyze Amazon Aurora & RDS data in Amazon ...
11:03
AWS S3 Vs. DynamoDB Vs. RDS Aurora Vs. Redshift - YouTube
01:37
AWS RDS vs Aurora (2026) - Which One Is BETTER? - YouTube
05:17
Which AWS Database Should I Use? - YouTube
What is the difference between AWS RDS and Redshift?
AWS RDS is a managed service for relational databases (e.g., MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server) designed for transactional workloads.
Redshift is a cloud data warehouse designed for analytical workloads, handling large-scale data queries and complex aggregations.
Redshift is a cloud data warehouse designed for analytical workloads, handling large-scale data queries and complex aggregations.
hevodata.com
hevodata.com › home › blog › data warehousing
Amazon Redshift Vs RDS Comparison: 9 Critical Factors
What is the difference between Redshift and RDS?
Purpose: Redshift is designed for data warehousing and analytics (OLAP), while RDS (Relational Database Service) is designed for transactional database workloads (OLTP).
Performance: Redshift utilizes a columnar storage format and is optimized for complex queries and large datasets, whereas RDS is optimized for high-speed transactions and relational data operations.
Scalability: Redshift can scale to handle petabyte-scale data warehouses, while RDS is more focused on scaling for standard database applications.
Performance: Redshift utilizes a columnar storage format and is optimized for complex queries and large datasets, whereas RDS is optimized for high-speed transactions and relational data operations.
Scalability: Redshift can scale to handle petabyte-scale data warehouses, while RDS is more focused on scaling for standard database applications.
hevodata.com
hevodata.com › home › blog › data warehousing
Amazon Redshift vs Aurora: 9 Critical Differences
Which is better, Aurora or Redshift?
Choosing between Aurora and Redshift depends on the use case. Aurora is better for transactional workloads and applications that require high availability and low-latency access to data. Redshift, on the other hand, is optimized for analytical workloads, providing fast query performance on large datasets for business intelligence and reporting.
hevodata.com
hevodata.com › home › blog › data warehousing
Amazon Redshift vs Aurora: 9 Critical Differences
Hevo Data
hevodata.com › home › blog › data warehousing
Amazon Redshift vs Aurora: 9 Critical Differences
January 27, 2026 - It costs .1 $ per GB per month and .2$ per 1 million requests. Aurora storage pricing is based on the maximum storage ever used by the cluster and it is not possible to reclaim space after being deleted without re instantiating the database.
Reddit
reddit.com › r/aws › deciding between rds and redshift for "data warehouse"
r/aws on Reddit: Deciding between RDS and Redshift for "data warehouse"
January 27, 2023 -
Hi all,
I have a business request to ETL data from several sources into a data warehouse to run BI tools on (Tableau or PowerBI for example).
The dataset isn't that big, 400GB growing 4GB per week. I can't find any good explanation on if I should use RDS or Redshift to store the data.
Can anyone with experience on this topic guide me please?
Thank you!
Top answer 1 of 2
6
You can go for Aurora first then migrate to redshift when your data gets around 5Tb or so, that’s my estimate in which the query starts to get slow in a rds and dwh will be much faster
2 of 2
6
RDS stores rows of data near each other, ideal for transactional processing, whereas Redshift (and many other data warehouses) uses a columnar storage where columns of data are stored near each other - ideal in terms of performance for read-only reporting queries that BI tools will be using. So I think you might need to establish whether the queries your BI tool will be using will always be over indexed columns if you want to store it in RDS, or whether you need to be flexible in which columns will be used in the where clause of the queries your BI tool with run, (potentially over unindexed columns if you were to store it in RDS, in which case a data warehouse will be more performant). So - it depends on what your performance and pricing requirements are with respect to the types of queries your BI tool will be running.
DataCamp
datacamp.com › blog › rds-vs-aurora
Amazon RDS vs Aurora: Which is Right For Your Data Workload? | DataCamp
March 23, 2025 - Aurora Serverless automatically adjusts capacity based on demand, making it cost-effective for intermittent workloads. RDS Auto Scaling allows dynamic resizing of read replicas to handle traffic spikes without over-provisioning. Instead of scaling up a single large database, distribute read-heavy traffic using read replicas. Implement Amazon ElastiCache to reduce database load and minimize query costs.
CloudZero
cloudzero.com › home › blog › aurora vs. rds: choosing the best aws database solution
Aurora Vs. RDS: Choosing The Best AWS Database Solution
May 15, 2026 - But for larger teams or more complex workloads, Aurora’s extra logging can make a big difference. ... CloudTrail Vs. CloudWatch: A Full Comparison Guide ... Amazon RDS pricing is based on usage. However, RDS billing is based on several factors including DB engine, DB instance type, DB region, purchase option (Reserved or On-Demand), outbound data transfers, deployment type, and whether you need additional storage. You can use the RDS pricing factors to calculate your costs in advance.
Medium
medium.com › @abylead › aws-database-overview-rds-vs-aurora-vs-redshift-vs-dynamodb-7eeebb61ca98
Amazon RDS vs Redshift vs DynamoDB Database
November 12, 2023 - For such a case, you don´t select RDS. And when it comes to throughput and latency, remember to consider Aurora and the fast processing of DynamoDB. This isn’t really a domain of Redshift, as it covers really large data solutions in many variants with multiple performance options. Altogether, if costs but not size is your preference, architect with DynamoDB instead of the costly Aurora.
Hevo Data
hevodata.com › home › blog › data warehousing
Amazon Redshift Vs RDS Comparison: 9 Critical Factors
January 27, 2026 - The argument in favor of completely managed services is the obvious cost savings and relief from offloading all the nitty-gritty related to maintaining a highly reliable database service. In this blog, we will compare two of the most popular databases as a service from Amazon – AWS Redshift vs RDS, to see how they stack up to each other.
AWS
aws.amazon.com › what is cloud computing? › databases › compare amazon aurora and amazon rds
Differences between Amazon Aurora and Amazon RDS - AWS
2 weeks ago - Compare Amazon Aurora and Amazon RDS side by side. Aurora offers up to 5x MySQL performance with cloud-native architecture; RDS provides familiar engines with managed infrastructure. See features, pricing, use cases, and expert guidance to choose the right AWS relational database.
TechTarget
techtarget.com › searchcloudcomputing › answer › When-should-I-use-Amazon-RDS-vs-Aurora-Serverless
Amazon RDS vs. Aurora Serverless: What's the better option? | TechTarget
This article breaks down the two services and compares factors such as resource management, performance and cost. Amazon RDS is a managed service that launches and maintains database servers in the cloud. This service enables developers to choose database instance type and size. Users can also select a database engine, including Amazon Aurora, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MariaDB, Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server.
StackShare
stackshare.io › stackups › amazon-aurora-vs-amazon-redshift
Amazon Redshift vs Amazon Aurora | What are the differences? | StackShare
Amazon Redshift - It is optimized for data sets ranging from a few hundred gigabytes to a petabyte or more and costs less than $1,000 per terabyte per year, a tenth the cost of most traditional data warehousing solutions.
Just After Midnight
justaftermidnight247.com › insights › rds-redshift-dynamodb-and-aurora-how-do-aws-managed-databases-compare
RDS, Redshift, DynamoDB and Aurora - how do AWS’ managed databases compare? | Just After Midnight
January 23, 2026 - At the extreme end of things, however, Redshift is probably the better choice, since its Concurrency Scaling feature – which costs extra – allows it to take on a virtually limitless amount of queries. DynamoDB – DynamoDB scales seamlessly with no impact on performance. And the user may choose to run DynamoDB on on-demand or in provisioned capacity mode, in which a limit can be set on scale, much like RDS. Aurora – How Aurora scales depends on whether it’s running on RDS or Aurora Serverless.
Amazon Web Services
aws.amazon.com › analytics › amazon redshift › pricing
Amazon Redshift Pricing
2 weeks ago - For RG or RA3, data stored in managed ... node costs. Amazon Redshift has zero-ETL integrations with online transaction processing (OLTP) databases and enterprise applications, removing the need to build and manage extract, transform, and load (ETL) pipelines. Supported databases include Amazon Aurora, Amazon DynamoDB, and Amazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS), and Oracle ...
DB-Engines
db-engines.com › en › system › Amazon+Aurora;Amazon+Redshift
Amazon Aurora vs. Amazon Redshift Comparison
Detailed side-by-side view of Amazon Aurora and Amazon Redshift
GeeksforGeeks
geeksforgeeks.org › devops › aws-rds-vs-aurora
AWS RDS vs Aurora: How to Choose the Right AWS Database Solution - GeeksforGeeks
June 26, 2026 - Query Optimization: Features Aurora Optimized Reads to deliver up to 8 times faster query latencies and up to a 30% reduction in database operational costs. The table below evaluates the primary technical, architectural, and financial differences ...
AWS
docs.aws.amazon.com › databases-on-aws-how-to-choose
Amazon
Organizations can choose to simply ... platforms to managed services like Amazon RDS, or refactor their applications to use cloud-native solutions like Aurora or purpose-built NoSQL databases. For maximum flexibility and cost optimization, AWS also provides serverless database ...
Bytebase
bytebase.com › blog › comparison › aws aurora vs. rds pricing: a detailed comparison 2025
AWS Aurora vs. RDS Pricing: A Detailed Comparison 2025 | Bytebase
May 9, 2025 - Aurora provides a cloud-native, highly scalable solution compatible with MySQL and PostgreSQL, while RDS supports multiple traditional engines with a more straightforward pricing model. This 2025 pricing comparison will examine their cost components, highlight key trade-offs, and guide you to the most cost-effective choice for your specific workload requirements.
Cloudchipr
cloudchipr.com › blog › aws-rds-vs-aurora
AWS RDS vs Aurora: Choosing the right AWS Database Solution
... Aurora instances typically cost about 20% more than equivalent RDS MySQL instances. Moreover, if you choose to add Aurora read replicas, the overall cost of your Aurora cluster can potentially double.
DZone
dzone.com › data engineering › databases › rds, redshift, dynamodb, and aurora – how do they compare?
RDS, Redshift, DynamoDB, and Aurora – How Do They Compare?
April 3, 2020 - At the extreme end of things, however, Redshift is probably the better choice, since its Concurrency Scaling feature – which costs extra – allows it to take on a virtually limitless amount of queries. DynamoDB – DynamoDB scales seamlessly with no impact on performance. And the user may choose to run DynamoDB on on-demand or in provisioned capacity mode, in which a limit can be set on scale, much like RDS. Aurora – How Aurora scales depends on whether it’s running on RDS or Aurora Serverless.
Rapyder
rapyder.com › home › blog › aurora vs rds: which is best aws database for your business
Aurora vs RDS: Key Differences, Cost & Performance (2026)
March 25, 2026 - But unlike a traditional RDS engine, Aurora uses a distributed, highly available storage layer that decouples compute and storage. This architecture delivers high throughput, better fault-tolerance, and seamless scaling. When comparing Amazon Aurora vs RDS, the differences run deep; not just in pricing, but in architecture, performance, availability, and more.