Top 7 MySQL Alternatives (2026): When to Stay or Switch

If you run a transactional, read‑heavy app and your team already speaks MySQL fluently, switching databases is a big bet. The real question isn’t “What’s the hottest engine?” It’s “Will we improve maintainability without blowing up risk and day‑2 operations?” This guide keeps that lens: pragmatic picks for OLTP, clear trade‑offs, and migration notes you can act on.

When to stay versus when to switch

Think of your database choice like a transmission in a truck: the one you know can carry most loads, but certain routes demand different gears. Use this matrix to decide quickly.

Brief vignettes:

• SaaS CRUD with read‑mostly traffic: replicas and managed MySQL usually deliver. Add cache and careful indexing before a replatform.
• Global consumer app with low‑latency writes: consider distributed SQL to avoid bespoke conflict resolution.
• Complex reporting alongside OLTP: the Postgres family can reduce app‑level work with JSONB and advanced indexing.

Shortlist at a glance

Seven OLTP‑ready options that map cleanly to common scenarios. Tags help you zero in quickly.

Best MySQL alternatives for OLTP in 2026

PostgreSQL

Overview and fit: PostgreSQL brings robust MVCC, default Read Committed isolation, and an optional Serializable Snapshot Isolation path, with feature depth in JSONB, indexing (GIN, GiST, BRIN, partial), and extensions. Official manuals cover concurrency and PITR in detail; see the PostgreSQL 17 documentation index for transaction isolation and backup chapters in 2026. According to the PostgreSQL documentation index for version 17, you can navigate Concurrency Control and Continuous Archiving for PITR in the core manuals as of 2026, which anchors operational practices in primary sources PostgreSQL 17 documentation index.

Operations notes: WAL archiving supports point‑in‑time recovery; mature replication options help read scaling. Monitoring deadlocks, bloat, and autovacuum keeps latency predictable.

Migration and compatibility: Expect SQL dialect differences, function behavior changes, and stored routine rewrites. pgloader is commonly used for schema and data moves; the PostgreSQL community wiki outlines conversion practices and tooling as of 2026 in a dedicated guide PostgreSQL wiki on converting from other databases.

When not to choose: If your team cannot absorb dialect shifts soon or your workload depends heavily on MySQL‑specific semantics and tooling, staying may be safer.

MariaDB

Overview and fit: MariaDB preserves much of the MySQL developer experience and operational feel, making it a pragmatic drop‑in for many teams. However, GTID replication differs from MySQL and is not wire‑compatible; this is documented in the official MariaDB replication guides as of 2026 MariaDB GTID replication and compatibility notes.

Operations notes: Mariabackup provides full backups and restore paths; binlogs enable point‑in‑time recovery. Verify HA topology and version match before cutover.

Migration and compatibility: Many apps move with minimal code changes, but you should validate behavior differences feature‑by‑feature. MariaDB publishes a compatibility overview contrasting with MySQL as of current releases MariaDB vs MySQL compatibility overview.

When not to choose: If you rely on MySQL‑specific GTID behavior, X Protocol, or features that have diverged, you may face friction.

Amazon Aurora MySQL and PostgreSQL compatible

Overview and fit: Aurora separates compute from a distributed storage layer replicated across multiple availability zones. That architecture underpins fast failover and supports up to fifteen read replicas in a cluster as documented in AWS guides in 2026 Aurora overview and replicas.

Operations notes: Managed backups to S3, automated failover, and fleet operations reduce day‑2 toil. Global Database offers cross‑region replication with well‑documented limits that you should verify against current AWS documentation before design.

Migration and compatibility: MySQL‑compatible and PostgreSQL‑compatible variants align with familiar clients and drivers. Use AWS DMS for minimal‑downtime migrations; AWS publishes prescriptive guidance for full‑load plus change data capture as of 2026 AWS Database Migration Service overview.

When not to choose: If you must avoid cloud lock‑in or your cost model penalizes storage I/O, instance hours, or cross‑region data flow, evaluate carefully.

TiDB

Overview and fit: TiDB is a distributed SQL database with MySQL wire compatibility, combining TiKV for transactions with TiFlash for analytics. Official docs describe the architecture and compatibility in 2026, helping teams reuse MySQL tooling while gaining scale‑out capabilities TiDB overview and compatibility.

Operations notes: Components like PD, TiKV, and TiFlash introduce operational complexity; plan for cluster‑aware monitoring and tuning. Snapshot isolation semantics and a global timestamp service shape latency under contention.

Migration and compatibility: Wire compatibility eases client transitions, but performance characteristics differ from single‑node MySQL. Validate ORM behavior and transaction retries.

When not to choose: If your team needs a single‑node operational model or cannot staff distributed cluster operations, consider managed options or sharding middleware.

CockroachDB

Overview and fit: CockroachDB emphasizes survivability and global consistency with default Serializable isolation. Newer releases support Read Committed modes, but the platform’s strong transaction model expects client‑side retry handling under contention; these behaviors are documented in official basics as of 2026 CockroachDB developer basics and isolation.

Operations notes: Scheduled backups, RESTORE, and point‑in‑time recovery via revision history are first‑class features. Multi‑region tooling and geo‑partitioning help keep data close to users.

Migration and compatibility: PostgreSQL wire compatibility helps many drivers, but it is not a full PostgreSQL clone. Test queries, indexes, and sequences for semantics.

When not to choose: If your workload cannot tolerate retried transactions or you need exact PostgreSQL feature parity, you may face refactoring work.

YugabyteDB

Overview and fit: YugabyteDB provides PostgreSQL‑compatible YSQL with distributed ACID transactions over Raft. Official documentation details isolation levels and transaction behavior, guiding design choices in 2026 ACID transactions in YSQL.

Operations notes: Distributed snapshots and backup tooling support recovery; multi‑region topologies are well described for various latency and consistency profiles.

Migration and compatibility: PostgreSQL familiarity is valuable. Verify extension support and exact feature coverage for your app’s needs.

When not to choose: If you require niche PostgreSQL extensions that aren’t supported or prefer a simpler single‑node operational model, reconsider.

Vitess

Overview and fit: Vitess is a sharding layer for MySQL that preserves MySQL semantics while adding routing, vindexes, and shard management. The official overview explains its topology service, VTGate, and VSchema conventions in 2026 Vitess what is Vitess.

Operations notes: You gain scale by splitting tables into keyspaces and shards, but cross‑shard joins and transactions require careful design. Expect additional operational components and conventions to manage.

Migration and compatibility: Because applications keep using MySQL drivers, many migrations are incremental. The trade‑off is sharding complexity and query routing rules you must learn and enforce.

When not to choose: If your application is not shard‑friendly or relies on heavy cross‑table transactions, Vitess can complicate development.

Migration appendix you can use tomorrow

Safe moves hinge on staged rollouts, rigorous testing, and a clean rollback. Here is a compact checklist.

• Inventory and classify schema objects: tables, indexes, triggers, stored routines, views, and ORM models. Map dialect differences and compatibility gaps.
• Choose your migration path: full dump and load for downtime windows or full‑load plus change data capture for near‑zero downtime. Validate CDC ordering, idempotency, and conflict handling.
• Dress rehearsal and cutover: run a production‑like rehearsal with p95 and p99 latency goals. Capture replica lag, lock wait times, and retry rates. Pre‑define rollback to MySQL with data reconciliation steps.

Benchmarking primer for OLTP decisions

Benchmarks are only useful if they model your workload. Focus on latency under contention, not just average throughput. A minimal Sysbench recipe for a read‑heavy OLTP POC:

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

# Prepare a MySQL-like schema and workload
sysbench oltp_read_only \
  --mysql-host=DB_HOST \
  --mysql-user=USER \
  --mysql-password=PASS \
  --tables=24 \
  --table-size=1000000 \
  prepare

# Run with realistic concurrency and measure tail latency
sysbench oltp_read_only \
  --threads=128 \
  --time=180 \
  --report-interval=5 \
  run

# Cleanup
sysbench oltp_read_only cleanup

Read your metrics like a pilot: p95 and p99 latency, mutex waits, checkpoint or flush behavior, replica lag, and retry counts under strict isolation. If you plan multi‑AZ or multi‑region, repeat tests across placement to surface network and consensus costs.

How these candidates score for maintainability‑first teams

Weights reflect what most startup CTOs and senior DBAs prioritize in 2026.

Rationale in one line each:

• PostgreSQL: strong long‑term platform with rich features; migration cost is the main hurdle.
• MariaDB: minimal change for many MySQL apps; confirm divergence areas.
• Aurora: managed HA and scale reduce ops; pricing and lock‑in are trade‑offs.
• TiDB: native scale‑out and HTAP; operational complexity rises with components.
• CockroachDB: global consistency and resilience; expect retries under Serializable.
• YugabyteDB: PG familiarity plus distribution; validate extension coverage.
• Vitess: keep MySQL and add sharding; complexity shifts to schema and routing.

Decision flow you can apply in a week

Start from your constraints, not headlines.

1. If maintainability and team familiarity dominate and replicas meet your SLOs, optimize MySQL further or adopt managed MySQL. Reassess quarterly.
2. If you need richer SQL and indexing, and can accept dialect change, favor PostgreSQL. Run a focused POC on your top three complex queries.
3. If operational toil and HA/DR are your pain, and you are on AWS, validate Aurora against your failure and backup drills.
4. If write scale or multi‑region consistency is mandatory, evaluate distributed SQL. MySQL‑compatible scale‑out points to TiDB; PG‑compatible global consistency points to CockroachDB or YugabyteDB.
5. If you must stay in MySQL but scale horizontally, trial Vitess with a shard‑friendly domain and a small blast radius.

A closing thought: MySQL alternatives are not a silver bullet. The best choice is the one your team can operate confidently on day 2, 200, and beyond. Run a targeted POC, measure tail latency under contention, and write your rollback plan before you begin replatforming.

References cited in this guide as of January 2026:

• Official PostgreSQL 17 manuals for isolation and PITR navigation: Concurrency Control and Backup chapters are accessible via the documentation index PostgreSQL 17 documentation index.
• PostgreSQL migration practices using pgloader, documented by the community wiki PostgreSQL wiki on converting from other databases.
• MariaDB GTID replication differences and compatibility notes as documented by MariaDB MariaDB GTID replication and compatibility notes.
• MariaDB compatibility overview against MySQL as published by MariaDB MariaDB vs MySQL compatibility overview.
• Aurora architecture and replica limits documented by AWS in the Aurora User Guide Aurora overview and replicas.
• TiDB architecture and MySQL compatibility in official TiDB docs TiDB overview and compatibility.
• CockroachDB developer basics and isolation expectations per official docs CockroachDB developer basics and isolation.
• YugabyteDB YSQL transaction behavior in official docs ACID transactions in YSQL.

Recommended reading

• SQL Optimization Course
• SQL optimization knowledge
• Database industry knowledge

What is SQLFlash?

SQLFlash is your AI-powered SQL Optimization Partner.

Based on AI models, we accurately identify SQL performance bottlenecks and optimize query performance, freeing you from the cumbersome SQL tuning process so you can fully focus on developing and implementing business logic.

How to use SQLFlash in a database?

• SQLFlash + MySQL

• SQLFlash + PostgreSQL