Free — no signup required

Aurora vs. RDS: Choosing the Right Tool

2 min read

When Aurora Is the Right Choice

Aurora is not always the right answer. It costs more than standard RDS (roughly 20% more for equivalent compute), and for small, low-traffic databases, that premium may not be justified. Understanding when Aurora's capabilities are worth the cost is an important architectural skill.

Choose Aurora when:
- You need sub-30-second failover — Aurora's shared storage architecture eliminates replica lag, enabling near-instant promotion.
- You need more than 5 read replicas — RDS supports up to 5; Aurora supports up to 15, all with zero replication lag to the writer.
- You need cross-region disaster recovery with RPO < 1 minute — Aurora Global Database is the only managed AWS option that achieves this.
- You need storage that scales automatically — Aurora storage grows in 10 GB increments automatically up to 128 TB. RDS requires manual storage scaling with potential downtime.
- You have variable or unpredictable workloads — Aurora Serverless v2 eliminates the provisioning guessing game.

Choose standard RDS when:
- You need a database engine Aurora doesn't support (e.g., Oracle, SQL Server, MariaDB).
- Your workload is small and steady, and the Aurora cost premium isn't justified.
- You have specific licensing requirements tied to a particular engine version that Aurora's managed environment doesn't support.

Aurora Feature Summary

Feature Aurora Standard RDS
Max Read Replicas 15 5
Failover Time < 30 seconds 1–2 minutes
Storage Auto-Scaling Yes (to 128 TB) Manual
Cross-Region RPO < 1 second (Global DB) Minutes (binlog lag)
Serverless Option Yes (v2) No
Engine Compatibility MySQL, PostgreSQL MySQL, PostgreSQL, Oracle, SQL Server, MariaDB

This is one of 18 chapters

Get every chapter — Kubernetes, Terraform, SRE, distributed systems, and more — with fast daily review built in.

See pricing