Top 48 Embedded Databases
Compare & Find the Best Embedded Database For Your Project.
Sort By:
| Database | Strengths | Weaknesses | Type | Visits | GH | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High read/write performance, Simple and lightweight, Optimized for fast storage | Limited to key-value storage, Not a relational database, No built-in replication | Key-Value, Embedded | 0.0 | 36.6k | ||
| High performance for write-heavy workloads, Optimized for fast storage environments | Complex API, Lack of built-in replication | Key-Value, Embedded | 12.9k | 28.7k | ||
| Offline capabilities, Synchronizes with CouchDB, JavaScript based | Limited scalability, Single-node architecture | Document, Embedded | 16.0k | 16.9k | ||
| High performance, Efficient key-value storage engine | Key-value store specific limitations, Limited to embedded scenarios | Key-Value, Embedded | 21.3k | 14.0k | ||
| Runs entirely in the browser, No server setup required, Supports SQL standard | Limited storage capabilities, Dependent on browser resources | Relational, Embedded | 727 | 12.8k | ||
| Single-file database, Lightweight and fast, No SQL server required | Limited to C# ecosystem, Not suitable for very large scale applications | Document, Embedded | 3.4k | 8.6k | ||
| Lightweight, Embedded | Limited scalability, Single-reader limitation | Key-Value, Embedded | 1.1m | 8.3k | ||
| Serverless, Lightweight, Broadly supported | Limited to single-user access, Not suitable for high write loads | Relational, Embedded | 487.7k | 6.7k | ||
| In-memory, Embedded storage | Limited functionality, No built-in networking | Embedded, In-Memory, Key-Value | 770 | 4.9k | ||
| High performance for embedded databases, Efficient object-oriented storage | Limited cross-platform support, Smaller community compared to other DBMS | Embedded, Object-Oriented | 1.6k | 4.4k | ||
| Lightweight, Embedded support, Fast | Limited scalability, In-memory by default | Relational, Embedded | 61.6k | 4.2k | ||
| High performance, Memory mapped, ACID compliance | Limited scalability, In-memory constraints | Embedded, In-Memory, Key-Value | 943 | 2.6k | ||
| Lightweight, Embedded, Cross-platform | Limited scalability, Single-threaded | Document, Embedded | 9 | 1.4k | ||
| Lightweight, Cross-platform, Strong SQL support | Smaller community, Fewer modern features | Relational, Embedded | 48.6k | 1.3k | ||
| Mobile-focused, Object-oriented, Offline-first | Not a full SQL replacement, Limited support for complex queries | Document, Embedded | 1.6k | 1.0k | ||
| Lightweight, Pure Java implementation, Embeddable | Limited scalability, Not suitable for very large databases | Relational, Embedded | 5.8m | 346 | ||
| Lightweight, Versatile, Highly efficient | Lack of advanced features, Smaller community base | Embedded, Key-Value | 1.7k | 177 | ||
| Robust transaction support, Open-source | Limited to specific healthcare applications, Less community support | Embedded, Hierarchical | 63 | 76 | ||
1984 | Small footprint, High performance, Strong security features | Limited modern community support, Lacks some advanced features of larger databases | Relational, Embedded | 357.4k | 0 | |
1992 | Embedded database capabilities, Reliable sync technology, Low resource usage | Limited scalability compared to major databases, Slightly dated interface | Relational, Embedded | 7.0m | 0 | |
| High performance, Supports multiple programming languages, Embeddable | Limited scalability, Complex to manage for large datasets | Embedded, Key-Value | 15.8m | 0 | ||
1979 | Embedded database capabilities, Support for various platforms, Low footprint | Limited awareness in the market, Older technology base | Embedded | 0 | 0 | |
1994 | Lightweight, Embedded systems | Obsolete compared to current databases, Limited support and features | Relational, Embedded | 235 | 0 | |
| Lightweight, Object-Oriented database | Limited support for distributed systems, Slower performance with complex queries | Embedded, Object-Oriented | 0 | 0 | ||
2005 | Embedded Database Capabilities, Ease of Use | Limited to PC SOFT Environment, Less Market Presence Compared to Mainstream DBMS | Embedded, Relational | 51.9k | 0 | |
1984 | Low Maintenance, Integrated Features | Aging Technology, Limited Adoption | Relational, Embedded | 96 | 0 | |
2001 | Fast in-memory processing, Suitable for embedded systems, Supports real-time applications | May not be ideal for large disk-based storage requirements | In-Memory, Embedded | 2.0k | 0 | |
| Efficient XML Data Processing, Open Source | Limited Adoption, Niche Use Case | Embedded, Machine Learning | 0 | 0 | ||
1998 | Embedded database, Small footprint, Easy integration | Limited scalability, Not open-source | Relational, Embedded | 494 | 0 | |
2003 | High-performance, Embedded database, SQL support | Lack of widespread adoption, Limited cloud support | Embedded, Relational | 3.9k | 0 | |
2004 | Embedded database solution, Easy integration with .NET applications | Limited scalability, Windows platform dependency | Relational, Embedded | 0 | 0 | |
| High performance for embedded systems, Real-time data processing | Niche use case focus, Smaller developer community | Relational, Embedded | 899 | 0 | ||
2005 | Embedded and lightweight, Java and C# support, Small footprint | Limited scalability, Not suitable for large applications | Object-Oriented, Embedded | 2.0k | 0 | |
2007 | Embedded use, Power efficiency, Targeted at IoT | Limited to embedded systems | Embedded, In-Memory | 0 | 0 | |
| Optimized for object-oriented applications, Flexible schema design | Niche use case, Less adoption outside specific industries | Embedded, Object-Oriented | 82.6k | 0 | ||
1979 | Hybrid data model, Proven reliability | Costly licensing, Complex deployment | Document, Relational, Embedded | 4.8k | 0 | |
1981 | Strong data security, High performance | Proprietary system, Cost | Relational, Embedded | 82.6k | 0 | |
2021 | High-speed operations, NoSQL capabilities | Relatively new, Limited ecosystem | Embedded, Key-Value | 58 | 0 | |
2008 | Small footprint, Embedded database capabilities | Limited scalability, Less popular than major DBMS options | Embedded, Relational | 494 | 0 | |
2018 | Efficiency in edge computing, Data synchronization | Newer product with less maturity, Limited ecosystem | Embedded, Relational, Document | 4.8k | 0 | |
2011 | Object-oriented structure, Fast prototyping, Flexible data storage | Less common compared to relational DBs, Specialized niche | Object-Oriented, Embedded | 0 | 0 | |
| Embedded, Cross-platform, Lightweight | Limited query capabilities, Smaller community support | Embedded, Object-Oriented | 0 | 0 | ||
| Highly scalable, Simplified design, Immutable structure | Limited ecosystem, Niche user base | Key-Value, Embedded | 0 | 0 | ||
2011 | High write throughput, Efficient storage management | Not suitable for complex queries, Limited built-in analytics | Key-Value, Embedded | 0.0 | 0 | |
2013 | Embedded design, Ease of integration | Limited scalability, Small community support | Document, Embedded | 163 | 0 | |
2000 | High performance, Scalable architecture | Proprietary system, Limited documentation | Embedded, Hierarchical | 0 | 0 | |
| Flexible data model, JSON support | Limited commercial support, Basic querying capabilities | Document, Embedded | 0 | 0 | ||
2009 | High performance key-value store, ACID transactions, Designed for embedded use | Limited community support, Lacks variety in query languages | Embedded, Key-Value | 0 | 0 |
Spot an error in our data? Join our Discord community and let us know
Related Database Rankings
Switch & save up to 80%
Dragonfly is fully compatible with the Redis ecosystem and requires no code changes to implement. Instantly experience up to a 25X boost in performance and 80% reduction in cost