Use Rds if
Teams that value speed and simplicity
AWS-native teams that need mature controls, VPC integration, and predictable production operations.
Relational Databases
Rds vs Cockroachdb
Cockroachdb edges out Rds for the default recommendation.
Use Cockroachdb if
Teams with more specialized requirements
Runner-up recommendation: Best fit for teams already standardized on AWS networking, compliance, and operational controls.
Head to head
| Tool | Branching | Free Tier | Serverless | Lockin Risk | Cost 100k Users | Postgres Compatible | Time To First Query | Operational Overhead | Pick |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rds | Low | 72 | 18 | High | |||||
| Cockroachdb | Medium | 85 | 7 | Medium | Pick |
Cost at scale
The pricing picture after the free tier
| Tool | Starter | Growth | Enterprise-ish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rds | $13 | $412 | $824 |
| Cockroachdb | $0 | $295 | $590 |
Cockroachdb
Cockroachdb edges out Rds for the default recommendation.
Rds is still credible when its constraints matter more than the default path.