Turbopuffer vs Qdrant
Compare deployment options, cost efficiency, and features to choose the right vector database for your application.
Database Comparison
Turbopuffer takes the lead.
Both Turbopuffer and Qdrant are powerful vector databases designed for efficient similarity search and storage. However, their deployment options and features differ in important ways.
Why Turbopuffer:
- Turbopuffer ranks higher overall
- Qdrant offers more deployment options
- Turbopuffer is more cost-effective
- Qdrant has more permissive licensing
- Qdrant has 3 more strengths
Turbopuffer
⭐Turbopuffer is a fully managed cloud vector database built around a centroid-optimized SPFresh index. It is designed for extremely low-cost, large-scale storage, leveraging object storage engines like S3, GCS, or Azure Blob.
Qdrant
Qdrant is an open-source vector database available as both a managed cloud service and a self-hosted solution. It offers strong HNSW performance, flexible deployment, and predictable cost structures, making it suitable for both startups and large-scale RAG workloads.
Feature Comparison
Infrastructure & Technical Details
| Feature | Turbopuffer | Qdrant |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | BYOC, Managed Cloud | Self-Hosted, Managed Cloud |
| Cost | Minimum commitment $64/month | Starts ~$0.014/hour for smallest node |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Index Types | SPFresh | HNSW, Sparse (dot similarity) |
| Cloud Providers | AWS, GCP, Azure | AWS, Azure, GCP |
| Regional Flexibility | high | high |
| Strengths Count | 7 | 10 |
| Weaknesses Count | 7 | 5 |