# Centralized vs. Decentralized: Performance Comparison between BigchainDB and Amazon QLDB
## 4 Comparison between BigchainDB and QLDB  
Ledger-based technologies have been developed in a variety of market segments. Consequently, taking a broad classification into account, the use of ledger technologies could fall into the following categories: for individual or low-volume use, for the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) field, and for the large enterprise field ([31; 32; 33; 34; 35]). As the profits generated on the individual or small business level (e.g., up to 20-50 employees) are generally low, the first segment is generally less targeted by major technology developers. In contrast, there are stringent regulations in the high-end enterprise field regarding product quality, product capabilities, as well as the functionalities that must be integrated and the methods by which these are ensured (including the fiscal responsibility). Thus, various technology manufacturers frequently target the mid-enterprise field, either to impose a \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Characteristics** & **Decentralized Ledger** & **Centralized Ledger** & **Traditional Database** \\ \hline Complete secured histories & Yes & Yes & No \\ \hline Centralized & No & Yes & Yes \\ \hline Best applicable area & Large sized organizations & Small sized organizations & Both large and small organizations \\ \hline Speed performance & Relatively slow & High & High \\ \hline Immutability & Yes & Yes & No \\ \hline Resilience & Distributed & Single point of failure & Single point of failure \\ \hline Support of multiple assets & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ \hline Control of information & Decentralized & Single point of control & Single point of control \\ \hline Authentication \& \
\begin{tabular}{c} Direct (cryptographic \\ verification) \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Done via third party \\ \end{tabular} & Done via third party \\ \hline Cost & High & Low & Low \\ \hline Maintenance & Relatively hard & Medium & Medium \\ \hline Examples & BigchainDB, & Amazon QLDB, & Amazon SimpleDB \\ CassandraDB & & Alibaba & Clusterpoint \\ LedgerDB & & FoundationDB \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of decentralized ledger, centralized ledger and traditional database [7; 8; 25; 30]. specific platform that will bring financial benefits or to test various technologies before launching them in the high-end enterprise field [36]. Open-source products also have a hidden cost of technological development, which is easier to justify in cases of the individual or small-scale enterprise systems. It is more difficult to justify for the high-end systems. Furthermore, products are either standalone or packaged as software as a service (SaaS). Within this category, QLDB is a reputable manufacturer's (Amazon) offering that also provides integrated support for banking, technology, and services--medical, financial, etc.--via its verifiable, serverless, centralized distributed ledger technology cryptographic system. In contrast, there are also offerings in this specialized area that allow self-hosting in a centralized or decentralized manner, which can be adjusted to local conditions due to the fact that it is an open source, it has permissive licensing conditions, and it is directly managed by customers without other third parties. BigchainDB is one of the most well-known systems of its kind. As mentioned in [37], Gartner highlights four common factors in the field of blockchain projects led by many companies or consortia:  
1. _\"The majority of industry (or consortia) participants need a distributed ledger where every participant has access to the same (single) source of truth._
2. _Once written to the ledger, the data is immutable and cannot be deleted or updated._
3. _A cryptographically and independently verifiable audit trail is needed to satisfy the use case, for example to prove the provenance or state of an asset._
4. _The various participants in the blockchain consortia all have a vested interest in its success; and there is no single entity in direct control of all activities\"_[37].