CockroachDB vs DynamoDB for Solo Developers

Quick Comparison

CockroachDB Overview

CockroachDB is a distributed SQL database designed to never go down. It's PostgreSQL-compatible, automatically replicates data across nodes and regions, and provides strong consistency guarantees. If a node fails, the others keep serving traffic without interruption. It's the database you'd choose if your application handles financial transactions across multiple continents.

The serverless free tier gives you a working database without cost. You write standard SQL, use Postgres drivers, and most ORMs work without modification. Under the hood, your data is distributed, but for small projects, you don't need to think about that.

The challenge is that CockroachDB's power is also its weakness for solo developers. The distributed architecture adds latency to simple queries. The pricing jump from free to dedicated ($295/mo) is steep. And the complexity of distributed systems, while hidden, still surfaces in edge cases and debugging sessions.

DynamoDB Overview

DynamoDB is AWS's fully managed NoSQL database promising single-digit millisecond performance regardless of scale. Netflix streams, Lyft rides, and Amazon.com itself run on DynamoDB. The performance at scale is proven.

The 25GB free tier and pay-per-request pricing make it accessible for small projects. If your application does 10 reads and 5 writes per minute, you're paying almost nothing. At scale, you can switch to provisioned capacity for more predictable costs.

The difficulty is the data modeling. DynamoDB is not a relational database. There are no joins. You design your tables around access patterns, which means you need to know how you'll query your data before you write a single row. Single-table design, composite keys, Global Secondary Indexes. It's a completely different mental model from SQL.

Key Differences

SQL vs NoSQL is the dividing line. CockroachDB gives you familiar SQL with joins, transactions, and relational integrity. DynamoDB gives you key-value operations with extraordinary performance but limited query flexibility. If your data is relational, CockroachDB is the natural fit. If it's key-value or document-oriented, DynamoDB works.

Both are overkill for solo developers, just in different ways. CockroachDB solves "I need my database to survive data center failures." DynamoDB solves "I need sub-millisecond reads at millions of requests per second." Neither of these is a solo developer problem. A simple Postgres instance handles most solo projects for years without strain.

Vendor lock-in differs significantly. CockroachDB uses Postgres-compatible SQL. You can migrate to standard Postgres with moderate effort. DynamoDB uses a proprietary API. Migrating away means rewriting your entire data layer. If future flexibility matters (and it should), CockroachDB gives you an exit path.

Cost structures are different. CockroachDB's serverless tier is free with usage limits. DynamoDB's free tier includes 25GB storage and capacity units. Both are usable for small projects. But scaling up tells a different story: CockroachDB jumps to $295/mo for dedicated. DynamoDB's pay-per-request scales gradually but can surprise you with costs if your access patterns aren't optimized.

Querying flexibility heavily favors CockroachDB. Need to run an ad-hoc query to understand your data? With CockroachDB, write SQL. With DynamoDB, if you didn't plan an index for that query, you're doing a full table scan (expensive) or you simply can't run that query. For solo developers who are constantly iterating, SQL flexibility is a significant advantage.

The learning curve is steep for both. CockroachDB requires understanding distributed systems concepts to debug production issues. DynamoDB requires mastering a completely different data modeling paradigm. Neither has a gentle ramp for beginners. But at least CockroachDB's SQL syntax is familiar.

When to Choose CockroachDB

• You need Postgres-compatible SQL with distributed guarantees
• Data consistency across regions is a hard requirement
• You want the flexibility of SQL queries and relational data
• You prefer to keep an exit path to standard PostgreSQL
• Your application handles financial or compliance-sensitive data

When to Choose DynamoDB

• You're building on AWS with Lambda and API Gateway
• Your access patterns are simple and well-defined
• You need guaranteed sub-millisecond reads at any scale
• Your data is naturally key-value (sessions, configs, event logs)
• You're already experienced with DynamoDB modeling

The Verdict

I'll be honest: neither is a great choice for solo developers. The 4/10 and 5/10 ratings reflect that both databases solve enterprise problems that individual developers rarely face.

If forced to choose, DynamoDB edges out CockroachDB slightly for solo developers because AWS's free tier is more practical, pay-per-request pricing is more affordable at low scale, and the AWS ecosystem integration is useful if you're already there. CockroachDB's $295 jump to dedicated pricing is brutal for an individual.

But my real recommendation? Skip both. Use Neon for free serverless Postgres if you want SQL flexibility, or Supabase if you want a complete backend. These tools are designed for the problems solo developers actually face: shipping fast, spending little, and not managing infrastructure. Save distributed databases and AWS NoSQL for when your project actually demands them.