PlanetScale vs CockroachDB
A side-by-side, data-driven comparison of PlanetScale and CockroachDB — pricing, free tiers and capabilities.
Both target serious scale, but PlanetScale is MySQL/Vitess (horizontal sharding) while CockroachDB is distributed, Postgres-compatible SQL built for multi-region resilience — choose by engine and whether sharding or global consistency is the priority.
At a glance
- CockroachDB has a free tier; PlanetScale does not.
- Different engines: PlanetScale is MySQL (Vitess) / PostgreSQL, CockroachDB is Distributed SQL (Postgres-compatible).
Specs side by side
| PlanetScale | CockroachDB | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Managed database | Managed database |
| Engine | MySQL (Vitess) / PostgreSQL | Distributed SQL (Postgres-compatible) |
| Pricing model | tiered | usage-based |
| Free tier | No | Yes |
| Regions | multi-region | multi-region |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Open source | No | No |
Pros & cons
Our editorial assessment — not vendor-stated facts. Last reviewed 2026-07-16.
PlanetScale
Pros
- Branch-and-deploy-request workflow makes schema migrations reviewable, reversible, and safe to apply online
- Proven horizontal scalability through Vitess, the system used to run some of the largest MySQL deployments
- Strong, consistent I/O performance from NVMe-backed Metal instances
- Supports both MySQL and Postgres, so teams aren't locked to a single engine
Cons
- No free tier: the free Hobby plan was removed in April 2024 and has not returned, though a low-cost paid single-node option was introduced in late 2025
- Metered storage, egress, and backup charges layered on top of per-cluster compute make total cost harder to predict
- Proprietary proxy, branching, and operator layers create some degree of vendor lock-in
- The Postgres engine is newer and less battle-tested than the long-established Vitess/MySQL product
CockroachDB
Pros
- Survives node, rack, and datacenter failures automatically, without manual failover
- Scales transactional throughput and storage by adding nodes, unlike single-primary Postgres
- Familiar PostgreSQL surface eases migration for many existing applications
- Combines strong consistency with geo-distribution, reducing custom sharding logic
- Offered as a fully managed cloud service (on AWS, GCP, and Azure) or self-hosted
Cons
- Not fully PostgreSQL-compatible: narrower extension ecosystem and some unsupported features and behaviors
- Distributed consensus adds write latency, especially for cross-region writes, versus a single-node database
- Self-hosted is no longer OSI open source; it uses a source-available enterprise license (free only below a revenue threshold)
- Running and paying for a distributed cluster is heavier and often costlier than a single-node database for small workloads
Bottom line
Pick PlanetScale for high-scale MySQL needing Vitess sharding and safe online schema changes. Pick CockroachDB for global apps needing resilient, horizontally-scalable SQL.
Some links may be affiliate links — we may earn a commission if you sign up, at no extra cost to you. It never affects our rankings. Learn more.
Frequently asked questions
- What is the difference between PlanetScale and CockroachDB?
- PlanetScale: A managed MySQL platform built on Vitess for horizontal sharding and non-blocking schema changes, aimed at high-scale production workloads (also offers Postgres). CockroachDB: A distributed, Postgres-compatible SQL database designed for horizontal scale and multi-region resilience, offered as a managed serverless or dedicated service.
- Does PlanetScale have a free tier?
- No.
- Does CockroachDB have a free tier?
- Yes.
More PlanetScale alternatives · More CockroachDB alternatives · Compare all platforms