Cassandra vs Qdrant comparison

Read 11 Qdrant reviews

5,720 Views
3,832 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Cassandra

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Cassandra and Qdrant based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Vector Databases solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Cassandra vs. Qdrant Report (Updated: September 2026).

Download the complete report

Cassandra vs. Qdrant

September 2026

Helped 917,433 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Cassandra

Ranking in Vector Databases

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

NoSQL Databases (5th)

Qdrant

Ranking in Vector Databases

2nd

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

5.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Open Source Databases (5th), AI Data Analysis (6th)

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Vector Databases category, the mindshare of Cassandra is 4.0%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qdrant is 6.3%, down from 9.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Vector Databases Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Qdrant	6.3%
Cassandra	4.0%
Other	89.7%

Vector Databases

Featured Reviews

Monirul Islam Khan

Head, Data Integration & Management at a non-profit with 10,001+ employees

Has maintained secure document storage and efficient data distribution with peer-to-peer architecture

The functions or features in Cassandra that I have found most valuable are that it is a distributed system similar to Mongo. It's good enough for comparison with another SQL database, so it's smooth and organized for distributed database system. The peer-to-peer architecture in Cassandra is helpful for network decentralization, and I have already introduced that feature. Cassandra features in peer-to-peer as well as another monitoring, so basically, it's good enough for our service. The tunable consistency level in Cassandra is good, and we are using that feature already. In terms of built-in caching and lightweight transactions in Cassandra, the transaction level is good, and it's optimized, so there are no more issues in that database. Based on my experience, Cassandra is good for document management system, as well as distributed database system, and the automatic recovery process is there. Additionally, the database monitoring system or auditing system is well-comparable with other database systems, so we are actually happy to be using this Cassandra database.

Read full review

Pawel Cislo

MLOps Engineer at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees

Adaptive assistant has delivered faster grounded answers and has reduced token costs significantly

The main limitations I notice come down to developer experience and native features rather than performance. Building hybrid retrieval and fusion pipelines still requires considerable manual orchestration and code. Having more built-in multi-query fusion strategies natively inside Qdrant would be a significant time-saver. Additionally, managing dynamic metadata schemas and tracking index build progress during bulk ingest could be more transparent in the web UI. To make things easier for developers, Qdrant could provide more native tools for managing payload schema evolution over time. As metadata needs change in production RAG systems, updating existing payloads across large collections currently requires custom migration scripts. Built-in schema versioning and simpler automated index testing during CI/CD would make running Qdrant in rapidly evolving production environments even smoother. I rate Qdrant 9 out of 10 because its speed, sub-15 millisecond retrieval, and single-stage payload filtering make it top-tier for production RAG pipelines. I deduct one point mainly for developer experience. Setting up multi-query fusion still requires extra boilerplate code, payload metadata schema updates require custom migration scripts, and real-time visibility into HNSW graph indexing progress during bulk ingest could be improved in the web UI.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The technical evaluation is very good."

"Its retrieval is similar to an RDBMS, so our team finds it easy to adapt."

"Ability to achieve write speeds 10k tps: Compared to existing, it is 300% percent higher."

"The most valuable features are the counter features and the NoSQL schema, and it also has good scalability because you can scale Cassandra to any infinite level."

"Some of the valued features of this solution are it has good performance and failover."

"It's used as our cloud based backend store as a temporary cache and for storing data that streams through our data pipe."

"The solution's database capabilities are very good."

"The most valuable features of Cassandra are its scaling capabilities and its non-SQL nature capabilities."

More Cassandra pros

"Using Qdrant's hybrid search capability has improved my search results."

"Qdrant has positively impacted my organization by significantly improving our RAG system's latency, cost-efficiency, and accuracy."

"Qdrant is a good and scalable vector database, and it is free."

"The advice I would give to others looking into using Qdrant is that it is very good and they can always rely on it for high performance, especially for local AI development and implementation."

"Qdrant has positively impacted my organization mainly by reducing usage costs for AI because in the older system, in order to get the context, we were just dumping everything into the system, which would inflate the cost of the API, whatever AI we were using, such as OpenAI or Claude."

"Qdrant is an excellent vector database that anyone would want to use with RAG AI."

"An accuracy boost was definitely observed from 45 to 50% using Faiss to around 85 to 95% using Qdrant, and the users are really happy as they are getting suggested really good schemes that would take a lot of time to find."

"We saw a clear return on investment from Qdrant, particularly in the engineering time saved and the empowerment of team members to handle self-service tasks instead of reducing headcount."

More Qdrant pros

Cons

"We have had stability issues including out of memory issues and crashes with earlier versions of the product."

"The disc space is lacking. You need to free it up as you are working."

"We experience configuration issues when accommodating the volumes we require, which often necessitates consultation with the Cassandra development team."

"The solution doesn't have joins between tables so you need other tools for that."

"Cassandra can improve by adding more built-in tools. For example, if you want to do some maintenance activities in the cluster, we have to depend on third-party tools. Having these tools build-in would be e benefit."

"The initial setup of Cassandra can be difficult in the configuration. There might be a need to have assistance. The implementation process can six months for connecting to certain databases."

"The secondary index in Cassandra was a bit problematic and could be improved."

"Depending upon our schema, we can't make ORDER BY or GROUP BY clauses in the product."

More Cassandra cons

"One of the key limitations is that Qdrant does not have built-in role-based access control, and while being self-hosted is a benefit, it can also be improved."

"There can always be improvements needed for Qdrant, but I do not want to add anything at this time."

"The area for improvement in Qdrant is its clustering capability. While it has clustering functionality, it is not easy to set up, and not everyone can configure the clustering, so there is room for improvement in the clustering configuration."

"A lot of our work is agentic right now, and we have also segmented the content to be logical, so there's not a lot of vector search anymore."

"The file system lock in Qdrant prevents the API and scripts from hitting it directly, and to surpass this limitation, I have to run Qdrant client as a service, which incurs additional costs for running it continuously, so if something about that could be done, it would be really amazing."

"A pain point I have encountered was the inactive expiration of the cloud created for certain projects; if the cloud is not used for a week, it gets terminated, which is frustrating."

"Qdrant is pretty good overall, but it can be improved. For example, the UI could be better, and it has pretty much very generic features that every other vector database provides."

"Architectural complexity was a key friction point, as our primary database was set in Supabase, necessitating synchronization of two separate systems for user data, permissions, and states."

More Qdrant cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We pay for a license."

"Cassandra is a free open source solution, but there is a commercial version available called DataStax Enterprise."

"We are using the open-source version of Cassandra, the solution is free."

"I don't have the specific numbers on pricing, but it was fairly priced."

"There are licensing fees that must be paid, but I'm not sure if they are paid monthly or yearly."

"I use the tool's open-source version."

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Vector Databases solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

917,433 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

15%

Comms Service Provider

10%

Construction Company

Outsourcing Company

Comms Service Provider

13%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Computer Software Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	14

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	2

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cassandra?

The pricing for Cassandra is a little bit high, so it would be better for our community services if they consider community pricing for any non-profit organization like an NGO or other things. It w...

What needs improvement with Cassandra?

Regarding areas of improvement for Cassandra, currently, we are not facing significant issues. Some issues arise from our vendors like Apache slowness and distribution or load balancing from HAProx...

What is your primary use case for Cassandra?

My use case for Cassandra is for a document and other unstructured data management system as well as structured data for ultra-poor member community edition, community members' PII information, so ...

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Qdrant?

I find Qdrant's pricing and licensing extremely straightforward and cost-effective. The core product is open source under Apache 2.0, so initial experimentation and local integration testing cost n...

What needs improvement with Qdrant?

I do not have any suggestions for how Qdrant could be improved. So far, I like what has been done and I have used it several times. I have nothing to add to it now, and I do not wish to add more ab...

What is your primary use case for Qdrant?

My main use case for Qdrant is local AI development. A specific example of how I'm using Qdrant in my development work is that I use it for my RAG development using N8n. In my drug development work...

MongoDB Enterprise Advanced vs Cassandra

Comparisons

ClickHouse vs Cassandra

Compared 7% of the time

Compared 7% of the time

Neo4j Graph Database vs Cassandra

Compared 6% of the time

DataStax Enterprise vs Cassandra

Compared 6% of the time

Cloudera Distribution for Hadoop vs Cassandra

Compared 5% of the time

More Cassandra Competitors

PostgreSQL vs Qdrant

Compared 8% of the time

Supabase vs Qdrant

Compared 8% of the time

MySQL vs Qdrant

Compared 6% of the time

Vespa vs Qdrant

Compared 6% of the time

Faiss vs Qdrant

Compared 6% of the time

More Qdrant Competitors

Product Reports

Download Cassandra product report

Cassandra

October 2026

Download Qdrant product report

October 2026

Overview

Cassandra is a distributed and scalable database management system used for real-time data processing.

It is highly valued for its ability to handle large amounts of data, scalability, high availability, fault tolerance, and flexible data model.

It is commonly used in finance, e-commerce, and social media industries.

Apache

Qdrant is a powerful tool for efficiently organizing and searching large volumes of data. It is particularly useful for tasks such as data indexing, similarity search, and recommendation systems.

With fast and accurate results, it is suitable for various applications including e-commerce, content management, and data analysis. Users appreciate Qdrant's efficient search capabilities, high performance, and ease of use.

Its quick and accurate retrieval of relevant information allows for easy navigation and analysis of large datasets.

The intuitive interface and straightforward setup process make it accessible to users with varying levels of technical expertise.

Sample Customers

1. Apple 2. Netflix 3. Facebook 4. Instagram 5. Twitter 6. eBay 7. Spotify 8. Uber 9. Airbnb 10. Adobe 11. Cisco 12. IBM 13. Microsoft 14. Yahoo 15. Reddit 16. Pinterest 17. Salesforce 18. LinkedIn 19. Hulu 20. Airbnb 21. Walmart 22. Target 23. Sony 24. Intel 25. Cisco 26. HP 27. Oracle 28. SAP 29. GE 30. Siemens 31. Volkswagen 32. Toyota

1. Airbnb 2. Amazon 3. Apple 4. BMW 5.Cisco 6. CocaCola 7. Dell 8. Disney 9. Google 10. HP 11. IBM 12. Intel 13. JPMorgan Chase 14. Kraft Heinz 15. L'Oreal 16. McDonalds 17. Merck 18. Microsoft 19. Nike20. Oracle 21. PG 22. PepsiCo 23. Procter and Gamble 24. Samsung 25. Shell 26. Sony 27. Toyota 28. Visa 29. Walmart 30. WeWork