NoSQL database vendor MongoDB has recently reported notable progress in its competition with the open-source relational database PostgreSQL, a claim that seems to contrast with recent industry research. During the announcement of its second-quarter results, which exceeded expectations with a revenue increase of 13 percent to 8.1 million, CEO Dev Ittycheria attributed part of this success to competitive wins against PostgreSQL. This assertion comes despite PostgreSQL being recognized as the most popular database among professional developers last year, according to a Stack Overflow survey.
In the second quarter of its fiscal 2025, which concluded on July 31, MongoDB reported operational losses of .4 million, a significant increase from the .0 million loss recorded in the same quarter the previous year. However, Ittycheria remained optimistic, highlighting a 14 percent rise in the company’s value following the results.
Competitive Wins Against PostgreSQL
Ittycheria cited a specific instance where MongoDB’s Atlas database service successfully replaced PostgreSQL in a project for Fanatics Betting & Gaming, a division of the billion sports ecosystem company, Fanatics. He explained, “Initially, the team launched a platform on PostgreSQL but faced challenges with scalability, flexibility, and excessive complexity. After migrating to MongoDB Atlas, the team also integrated Atlas Search to provide users with a better experience to find all available betting options. Fanatics plans to continue to expand on MongoDB Atlas as they ensure they can operate at scale as they prepare for the start of the NFL season.”
The rationale behind Fanatics Betting & Gaming’s initial choice remains somewhat unclear, suggesting a potential misalignment in database selection. Nevertheless, Ittycheria insisted that this case exemplifies a broader trend of MongoDB gaining traction against PostgreSQL. He noted PostgreSQL’s long-standing presence in the market, stating, “That technology has been around a long time. They’re really the beneficiary of lift and shift from Oracle, SQL Server, and MySQL, so they’re kind of consolidating the relational market.”
He elaborated on the advantages of MongoDB, emphasizing its flexible schema that accommodates JSON-like document storage, which is advantageous for evolving application structures. “We can horizontally scale,” he added, “so we’re making it very easy to distribute data across multiple servers or virtual servers for applications that require massive amounts of data. Again, we can handle the performance of large data sets better than PostgreSQL. The built-in sharding allows for automatic data distribution.”
Ittycheria also asserted that MongoDB enhances developer productivity due to its JSON-like format and flexible schema, leading to quicker development cycles that align with agile methodologies. He raised a question regarding users migrating from legacy relational databases to PostgreSQL, suggesting that they may prefer to remain within the familiar relational paradigm.
However, such statements warrant careful consideration, especially given MongoDB’s vested interest in the outcome of this rivalry. Since overtaking MongoDB in the DB-Engines ranking in 2017, PostgreSQL has continued to widen the gap. The latest Stack Overflow survey indicates that PostgreSQL is now utilized by 52 percent of developers.
While certain applications may indeed benefit from a specialized document database, it is crucial to recognize that PostgreSQL has long supported JSON documents. Furthermore, PostgreSQL’s ecosystem is bolstered by major cloud providers offering PostgreSQL front-end services, alongside alternatives like CockroachDB and YugaByteDB, which provide near-compatible front ends with the added advantage of distributed back ends for large-scale global applications.
The recent financial news from MongoDB follows a turbulent period for the NoSQL database company. In May, its valuation plummeted by as much as a quarter after the company lowered its revenue growth expectations for the remainder of the year, disappointing investors. Reclaiming lost ground will require more than a few contentious claims against a rival database.
