MongoDB Revisited

About a month ago AJ posted a link to a Bert article on MongoDB here:…

For what it is worth, I think it is the melding of relational functionality, with the advantages of NoSQL, that distinguishes the offering of MongoDB and has led it to a very high mind-share with positive commentary from market research analysts.

A couple weeks later, the FOOL published an article on MongoDB here:…

There didn’t seem to be much discussion generated…in fact, practically no discussion largely I believe, because we have all been basking in the sun of incredible earnings and perhaps satiated with rising stock values in our portfolios.

But I do think this one may be worth another look to better understand if it might fit in our portfolios.

This company was founded by the originators of DoubleClick and is a very recent IPO as of Oct 2017 with 3 sequential quarters of increasing revenue growth and YOY growth of over 50% with improved margins all along (though they remain unprofitable).

Their market is the non-relational database that has become so critical to the cloud and to various companies like EBay, Expedia and other cloud based businesses.

When I first heard they were up against Oracle…first instinct was “move along…nothing to see”. But then I see this report comparing the various and numerous nonSQL database companies here:

There are obviously many potential competitors and one in particular (MSFT’s product) moved up the chain quite a few positions. But MongoDB is firmly in lead in this category…one that is expected to grow upwards of 30% annually through 2022 to $4 Billion and a mere fraction of the legacy SQL Oracle type business at $60 Billion annually.

AS you can see, MDB is growing revenue faster than the general sector growth and the entire nonSQL database market is just 3% of the total database market…so much potential room for growth.

There is a nice webcast here from a recent investors conference that you might find interesting that addressed their moat, TAM, etc.:…

They make the argument that they have advantages in being the Switzerland of the non-SQL database.

I should warn you that they report earnings Tuesday March 13th and their stock had a recent breakout as you see here:…

So this is not for the faint of heart for sure with a recent IPO, upcoming earnings, small cap in high growth sector up against ORCL in an industry that needs an updated database structure for the future and…reporting earnings on the 13th ;).

They believe they have enough functionality to unseat the legacy database structures (though the gorilla OCRL could have their own plans up their sleeve that could swat these other flies in the future):…

The bear case of course can be easily summarized as follows:

  1. We haven’t yet experienced the selling pressure from stock lockup expirations.
  2. They are up against some big boys in ORCL, GOOG, AMZN IBM, MSFT.
  3. It will be exposed in any market correction.
  4. They have not provided any forecast into 2019
  5. As a very recent IPO, it is very complicated to try to value the company
  6. There is an unknown path to profitability

Against that bear case is the bull argument that we are potentially looking at the new paradigm database architecture leader…something not experienced since the 1970’s:

At this point, the company is seeing 30% of its revenue come from the migration of workloads from legacy relational database technology. This migration market, in particular, is likely to be most interested in MongoDB’s retention of the best features of relational technology.

MongoDB uses what is called an Affero General Public License. This allows the company to define the wall between free and paid features. In addition, the AGPL mandates limit the appeal to other companies, including cloud vendors, any attempt to monetize a version of the free software without licensing it from MongoDB. This is one of the key features of the company’s business model and is a substantial component of the company’s moat.

So IMO, there is something here to discuss…are destined to be the bug or the windshield???

The difference could be orders of magnitude in stock appreciation or decimation.

Anyone feel up to the challenge of discussing the speculative potential of this company?


Does the silly name add to the bear case? :slight_smile:

“Mongo LIKE sheriff” etc.

I took a starter position in this for the following reasons:

  1. Productivity and Flexibility: I have used MongoDB both in a consulting project and a choice for our own product. “NOSQL” implies not only SQL. Both structured and unstructured data can be stored, provides tremendous flexibility. Reduces programming time in mapping between programming data structures and the form it is stored. Reduces the overhead of managing schemas.

A tangent on this - around 2005 I have been advocating that Python would grow exponentially in importance and would become the default choice for application APIs. The reason was simple, Python was focused on programming productivity as no other language. It was easy to mix other languages with Python, so specialized languages could still be used integrated wherever required. Today in 2018 Python is everywhere. The advantage of productivity that a NOSQL database offers will ensure whre it can be used it will be used.

  1. Competetion: MongoDB has an enormous lead at this point, which itself creates a network effect. Since more people are familiar and have used MongoDB, more people will continue to opt for MongoDB creating its own virtuous cycle. Migration form SQL to more flexible NOSQL will continue wherever possible.

I am not too worried about competition from Amazon, Microsoft or cloud specific databases, MongoDB is cloud agnostic and can be used on premise as well as on the cloud. This simple fact will ensure, MongoDB will always have a market. Very few will be comfortable locking themselves only on AWS or Azure. The investor relations site for MongoDB has a slide relative number of downloads. It is clear MongoDB has a huge huge lead.

Oracle has a classic innovator’s dilemma. It’s proprietary databases are more expensive. If it really wants to compete in NOSQL space, it will have to forego revenue. I think it will be hard for it to do it.

  1. Expanding Functionality So why not use NOSQL everywhere if it is more flexible and productivie ? Simple answer - you cannot. There are a number of limitations. One big one was Transactions and ensuring consistency of the database which is vital for great number of functions (Think banking transactions). However just recently I saw this news -…

Leading open source document database software provider MongoDB is moving to eliminate the need for a separate database to process transactions.

Open source document databases have gained widespread popularity because they enable developers to build and deploy applications without waiting on database administrator (DBA) to build a schema. Most of the usage of open source document databases, however, have been confined to relatively lightweight Web and Internet of Things (IoT) applications. That often creates something of a management headache for IT organizations that still need to deploy relational databases or some other type of proprietary database to support transaction applications.

MongoDB, the leading provider of open source document database software, is now moving eliminate the need for a separate database to process transactions with the beta release of MongoDB 4.0, which for the first time adds support for a multi-document transaction that meets ACID requirements.

The goal is to make it simpler to combine analytics and transaction workloads in a simple to manage databases that eliminate the need for a relational database, says Seong Park, vice president of product strategy and marketing for MongoDB.

Even if partially successful, this can really really be huge. I believe current valuation does not capture potential upside from this capability. We will have to wait and see how this is received. Likely the recent run up in price is partially due to rally in SAAS stocks and excitement over this.

For some use cases, Mongo DB also has the Map Reduce functionality which Hadoop has to offer.

  1. Freemium Model There was some discussion on the Freemium model on this board. I believe this is really the key for longevity of the software companies going forward. Talend, Hubspot, MongoDB most of them now have it. This ensures you are not going to be easily undercut by a stronger or a weaker competitor. It will just not be enough for the likes of Google to come up with a free version of NOSQL. The bar is higher. MongoDB has 30 million free downloads. This also ensures a very steady stream of sales lead and reduces sales cost.

  2. Valuation Please refer investor slides and earnings report for more detailed breakdowns and trends. EV/sales is around 10 or 11. For a company growing at 55-60% and a very long runaway this does not look expensive. However non-gaap numbers look atrocious at first glance. 50% loss ! However it is unfair to value SAAS companies where all development effort has been expensed, without looking at cash flow and deferred revenues. They are loosing about 10 million a quarter. That number is shrinking. They have about 290 million as cash. I think they will be cash flow positive in a few quarters without having to go for dilution.

I believe this has all ingredients for a great investment. Caution - I expect this to be a volatile stock though.



Some of you questions were answered in the referenced webcast.

As a brief summary, here is what they said:

Developers are in need of fast response dependabale databases to maximize true user experience. The legacy relational database (ORCL) not been disrupted since the 1970’s. Yet, many developers are comfortable with the basic functionality of relational despite its ever increasing need for more powerful hardware to address the massive volume of data entered into the relational architecture. Those massive hardware needs can require massive and expensive upgrades every 2-3 years as compared to nonrelational that can be run in chunks and on 100’s of servers.

Thus nonrelational may be less expensive to administer with quicker response times and less need for more massive hardware upgrades.

Modern companies complete most often on basis of technology and the database is the core tool used to innovate. Managing data has always been the biggest challenge for companies and Mongo built the database architecture that it would have wanted as a developer.

They contend that Mongo’s solution is the easiest to use, puts data where data needs to be, has fast response times, and can be run anywhere (on-perm, off prem and cloud)…and is least expense vs relational database maintenance.

Company was founded 10 years ago and the first many years were just designing and engineering the database product.

The business model is different than others with a “freemium” version that anyone can use for free. Potential users can tinker with it and become familiar with it before buying. If the customer likes it, they can convert to the commercial product that has a recurring licensing model. Some 30 million downloads have occurred…10 million in just past year suggesting an acceleration in interest for non-relational DB but also in Mongo itself.

They can determine what features are in freemium vs paid versions and are in total control of IP.

Their next phase post engineering has been building up sales/marketing to bring and expand their product to the market.

Mongo Atlas is a “database as a service” offering and is first turnkey hosted version that is fastest growing element of the company…100% customer growth per year. This is a lower price point, lower end customer using a tweeked version of the “freemium” software then hosted by Mongo. They expect Atlas to morph over time with additional functionality and pricing as traction continues to grow. There will be some accounting issues on earnings report related to how/when they record revenue on monthly vs annual basis.

Hence, Mongo may have a bifurcated revenue model with rapidly growing lower end customers that have lower revenue per customer and then the higher end customer growing revenue per customer through land and expand strategies…sounds somewhat analagous to our many discussions of merchant types with SHOP.

They feel there is a $45 billion TAM and Mongo has a long horizon…perhaps the only modern database software that can be considered general purpose and thus complete for that entire pie.

With so many database companies, they feel they standout from the pack in the following ways:

  1. because of the large TAM and need for disruption there was a great deal of venture capital raised to try to fill the need in the market but over the last 2-3 years, Mongo has separated from the pack with revenue growth and scale.

  2. Mongo software works better for root intensive workloads but it has adapted to a general purpose database that therefore has more global appeal. The various other companies are more niche players and to satisfy a customers needs in general, Mongo would be the best choice.

  3. The ability to have transformed its software into a “general purpose” database, they set themselves apart from others such that 30% of their new business is from legacy realtional databases.

  4. Companies often need to “standardize” on a database and Mongo offers that ability and importantly, can stand alongside a legacy database with very familiar command usage between the two such that companies have less difficulty learning how to use both.

Regarding their TAM, they note the nonSQL is around $4-5 Billion. They believe they have solved all technical issues that would have been a previous barrier to choosing a legacy database vs choosing Mongo. Hence, they believe they can now compete for all legacy business…an even larger market as stated above.

The last deterrent was the “multi-document” new 4.0 release coming out over the summer…this was the last barrier to using NoSQL in their opinion and this expands their TAM greatly. What this means is that if a customer were building a new database from scratch, there is no reason not to choose Mongo…effective this summer.

They do note that for those who already have a relational database in place, these companies do not re-assess their databases every year…so there can be a longer sales cycle. What drives a potential customer to a new database migration would be:

  1. Massive new data volumes that slows computations
  2. Need to innovate
  3. Adapting to changing marketplaces - cloud, internet, mobile

Their business typically begins with a “new workload” database…and then over time, many of these customers will migrate over legacy databases to standardize on a single platform. So they also use a land and expand strategy.

There are three main drivers to database growth:

  1. Systems of engagement - new applications
  2. Systems of record- Financial or HR
  3. Systems of intelligence - analytical use

Systems engagement is the most common bucket driving Mongo’s business at this time. This category is the “land” and the other two categories are “expands”…they use the example of Barclays Bank in UK when Mongo became their customer access point through mobile when their legacy systems couldn’t handle the massive volume increases from mobile phone access…ultimately all the customer data ended up on Mongo and not the legacy systems.

The question came up as to what specifically drives a customer to transition away from a legacy to a new database…wish they had gone into more detail on this issue because it seems very important to the more massive TAM. He used vague references to business requirement including not being competitive enough and some regulatory requirements.

They mention that CSCO uses them for their order capture system…some $45 Billion in orders annually…mission critical and they chose Mongo. CSCO had previous downtime issues, rigidity and performance issues…all solved with Mongo.

The question was asked as to whether the 30% of revenue from legacy migrations would be expected in future years. The CFO said that this may fluctuate from quarter to quarter but that the general direction is toward NoSQL databases over time.

He breaks down market into the following:

  1. The growth of SQL is expected to be some $18 Billion ove next 4 years and they believe they can attack that market (new databases)

  2. Growth of NoSQL databases expected to growth 30% annually to $4 Billion in 4 years

  3. Legacy displacements ($45 Billion)

Seems to me that the first two are really the lower hanging fruit…still a massive TAM upwards of $22 Billion ignoring any displacements (longer sales cycle).

Keep in mind that their expected revenue run rate this coming year is only in range of $250 Million so they have a huge runway if the investment thesis is correct.

The question then arose on established and well capitalized competitors:

  1. Cloud providers

Why wouldn’t a customer use use the incumbant cloud provider database solutions (AWS, MSFT, GOOG) instead of a third party? He argues that this would make one a prisoner to that cloud provider whereas using Mongo, one can migrate to any cloud at any time and thus avoid vendor lock-in or even do hybrid or on-prem functions. He also points out that there are large feature gaps between what cloud providers offer as compared to Mongo. He does acknowledge that lower end customers without complicated database needs will just go with hosting cloud.

An interesting aspect of these cloud competitors is that they have been great Mongo partners in the roll out of Mongo’s Atlas program since it uses any of those three clouds and therefore all three have helped fund its growth. MSFT coincidently uses Mongo for one of its databases.

  1. Legacy providers

He feels that they are just not seeing the “modern offerings” from the legacy players like ORCL in the general market…perhaps this is because they are potential victims of the innovators dilemma??..self cannibilizing their own business. He seems to dispel that these legacy players will be able to offer modern database solutions that can compete as well as Mongo…that was a bit surprising since the stock market generally seems concerned about the threat of ORCL.

Their business model is a pseudo-open source but they control the licensing and IP. 90% of their revenue is from subscriptions and the other 10% from services.

As they make their move into general purpose database market, these are the reasons for running cash deficit:

  1. R&D costs - they intend to continually improve the software. For example the multi document announcement a few weeks ago was a 3 year engineering effort.
  2. sales and marketing expenses - they comment how ORCL sales people outnumber Mongo perhaps 100:1 so they intend to ramp up sales efforts.

So in summary…the bull base is:

  1. Mongo is a top ranked modern database software engineered to have faster response times, less downtime, less cost, less hardware centric and versatile in the entire landscape of cloud, hybrid and on-prem locations.

  2. Mongo has engineered what may be the “only” modern data base for general purpose and therefore may be able to compete for a TAM estimated at over $65 Billion annually with lower to higher hanging fruit being NoSQL ($4 billion), new SQL ($16 Billion) and legacy displacements ($45 Billion). The latter two categories are really mostly accessible after release 4.0 this summer.

  3. They are launching a database as a service model through Atlas that may continue to grow in time with price points and volume

  4. There is such massive volume growth in data through the cloud and mobile that relational databases seem to be disadvantaged going forward.

Sorry for the long winded post, but I like to refer back to threads in future as I QI my thought processes when deciding to buy, sell or sit out of stocks…so this thread will be saved for future reference.

In full disclosure, I have no position in Mongo as yet…just kicking tires and raising the hood.


Hi TechnologyGrowth: great insight, thanks for sharing… Seems you have pretty strong argument… why only starter position yet?

Hi dumaflotchie: Your bull case seems reasonable. Why no position yet?

I have starter position and intend to make it full position or even upto double position. However, trying to figure out why lot more knowledgeable folks here still holding back.

Thanks for your help.

1 Like

great insight, thanks for sharing… Seems you have pretty strong argument… why only starter position yet?

It is already more than a starter position :slight_smile: It is certainly worthy of a bigger position eventually.

Holding back on few things for now:

  1. It is cash flow negative. Though likely to positive soon. As a rule I like to stick to companies which are cash flow positive. Make an exception in few cases such as this.

  2. Newer position. Usually understanding more for a quarter or so helps. Will take more deeper dive in competitive dynamics. Also helps to understand how the new critical functionality is received. However given the TAM it is hard to imagine this company not having a revenue of 1 to 2 billion dollars over the next few years (best case is likely much much more).


Up 10% today…on no news that I can find?

Up 10% today…on no news that I can find?


Denny Schlesinger

PS: Where have all the answers gone?

I prefer the Kingston Trio


Hi Duma,
Been looking at this one also.
You wrote: 1) We haven’t yet experienced the selling pressure from stock lockup expirations.

Has there been any general rule of thumb on how consistent a stock does drop from lockup expirations and if those drops are typically short-term?

Secondly - you happen to know when the stock lockup expirations are?

Will definitely be a very interesting ER for sure.



Looks like we have 2 people interested in discussing this stock :wink:

The stock lockup expires in 180 days from the initial opening trade of Oct 19th…I will let you count the days :wink: The negative effect depends on how many people want out at that moment and dump shares into the float.

Even without this, the stock will be highly volatile…even today it flung from + to - a couple times on high volume.

We only have the historical experience of a single earnings from last quarter at which time they surprised on revenue growth up 58% YoY and a beat by 12% from consensus. That promptly sent shares down 5% by the next day…with a 40% gain in stock value since that time.

You may recall that this stock closed around $32 on its first day of trading back in Oct…so we are presently above the IPO price. This was equivalent to its 2015 private valuation…surely it would be worth more now give that its revenue is some 4 times that of 2015??

So we should expect volatility into this earnings call but…if they continue to surprise…we might expect stock price increases in the coming years.

In their last earnings call here:…

They said that the Atlas revenue had grown from 1% to 8% of total. I expect that to continue to grow and bolster revenue in the near term.

We will not have the 4.0 version of software out until summer 2018 so some of that massive SQL market may be delayed to 2019 and beyond.

They guided 4th quarter to $42 million in revenue…more than the entire year revenue in 2015 and up from $29.9 million 4th quarter last year (41% increase). Every quarter previous, they have had sequential increased revenue (from their S1) so if they only go from $41.5 million to their guidance of $42 million…that would be a first…and a disappointment IMO.

Perhaps this guidance is their very early caution in reporting since this would be only their second earnings report…but I would be expecting a beat…especially give the rapid growth of Atlas…but a beat last time sent shares down 5%…temporarily.

But the real growth IMO, is the substitution of the legacy SQL databases and that likely evolves over variable timeframes based on the three buckets I listed above.



Guess I should have counted…looks like the 180 days has passed.

1 Like

While Mongo is certainly interesting, one of the things which makes it quite different from others of the companies discussed here is that they are, at best, first among equals rather than having some unique product. Moreover, the idea that they are competing with relational DB companies is largely fictional since the vast bulk of sales of vendors of relational DBs is to support applications which are inherently dependent on a relational DB. And, frankly, the almost all of those applications are transactional and thus highly suited to a relational DB and would be greatly harmed by being implemented on anything else. Mongo’s market is applications which are mostly not already in other DBs because the data involved is not nicely structured and thus doesn’t fit the highly structured relational model. Relational databases are very mature and highly performant at what they do. Moreover, they have a large ecosystem of things like reporting products which are only going to work on relational DBs … meaning that those tools are missing on NoSQL DBs.

Note the one of the possible exceptions to this are products like those from Data Direct which will allow accessing NoSQL DBs with SQL and feeding the data, with cleaning, matching, and other appropriate tools, into reporting tools like Tableau.



How often have you used Mongo and on what specific projects?

Much of what you have said is directly contradicted by their case studies and other information.

If you are to be believed, we might as well get the class action lawsuit going against Mongo right now.

1 Like

Duma, shooting the messenger doesn’t change the message. I have been working with relational databases since the early 80s, work which includes being the principal architect for an ERP system which competed successfully against the likes of Oracle Financials and PeopleSoft. What are your credentials for judging the capabilities of relational and non-relational databases?


Duma, shooting the messenger doesn’t change the message. I have been working with relational databases since the early 80s, work which includes being the principal architect for an ERP system which competed successfully against the likes of Oracle Financials and PeopleSoft. What are your credentials for judging the capabilities of relational and non-relational databases?

I don’t doubt your knowledge or experience and value your perspective. But I have seen industry experts hung up on years of knowledge and stereotypes. In fact with my previous employer that led to a wrong decision of going with mysql database vd NoSQL (An ex developer whom I met recently acknowledged that error).

It is incorrect to say RDBMS are NoSQL are completely different use cases. While there will always be use cases where only RDBMS can be used, over the years MongoDB has expanded the number of use cases where it can be applied. With the recent addition of multi document ACID transactions in MongoDB, the overlap area has only increased. I say this from both personal experience and company’s own use cases.

I would highly urge to go over the earnings transcript:…

In addition just two weeks ago, AWS CEO, Andy Jassy noted that MongoDB is kicking butt on AWS. These steps establish MongoDB as the modern leader in the massive database market. IDC estimates in a most recent report from November 2017 that the database market is 44.9 billion in 2016, growing to 63.3 billion in 2020. We believe we’re well positioned to go after both net new applications as well as existing applications there will be modernize and in many cases move to the cloud.

In fact, approximately 30% of our new business already comes from migration of applications from legacy relational databases. As a result, we believe we’re well positioned to address the large part of this massive market. A key element of our success is licensing model. This model combines the adoption benefits of open source with the economic benefits of a proprietary software business model.


Duma, shooting the messenger doesn’t change the message. I have been working with relational databases since the early 80s, work which includes being the principal architect for an ERP system which competed successfully against the likes of Oracle Financials and PeopleSoft. What are your credentials for judging the capabilities of relational and non-relational databases?

Lol…my credentials are not being lazy.

One cannot just spout generic superfluous commentary with no effort to research or understand what a company does. In the case of Mongo, your comments were detached from the conpany’s narrative and that of many case studies that I have already referenced on the NPI.

I don’t mind anyone being mistaken about a company or stock, but laziness is unacceptable.

You have taken a similar approach to NTNX and AAXN recently with neither negative commentary from you being accurate or revealing effort to understand the business.

As to my credentials, they are what is most important in this game…successful wealth creation.

That being said, I have already laid out the bear case for Mongo so this is not a test of wills on my side.


Duma, if you don’t like my information, please ignore it, but refrain from attacking me personally.

Databases and applications happens to be an area where I have deep experience and a world-wide reputation in the software community of which I am a part. Laziness doesn’t enter in. I don’t have to go learn about Mongo because this is stuff I have been living with in my professional life for years.

You also seem to fail to notice that I am NOT making an investment recommendation. I am just providing some information. Mongo may well be a wonderful investment, but when people start talking about it as if it was going to take over every application built on Oracle or SQL Server or whatever, then one is letting one’s imagination run away. There is a plenty big TAM, especially with the coming big data applications, without trying to pretend that the TAM is everything that runs on a database.

Likewise, despite my repeated corrections, you refuse to understand that one can provide information about a company without it being an investment recommendation. The study showing that body cameras did not seem to be providing the expected change in behavior is an interesting data point which I would want to know about if I was investing in AAXN. It is not a recommendation to invest or not invest. It is just a data point.


Mongo may well be a wonderful investment, but when people start talking about it as if it was going to take over every application built on Oracle or SQL Server or whatever, then one is letting one’s imagination run away.

Nowhere was that stated. In fact it was clearly stated about a 3 segment market of which two were the lower hanging fruit.

It amazes me that a world class reputation wouldn’t know everything about Mongo…that is true.
IMO, when one tries to use these kind of overblown self accoutrements to justify an opinion, it is a warning about what follows.

I believe you claimed that your circle didn’t even have NTNX in their mindset let alone consider it a force in HCI. You also claimed that a single study that overextended police force wasn’t affected by cameras was a reason to be negative about AAXN…that is what you said…not really understanding what the business strategy of AAXN was.

These are just examples of not understanding the businesses…whatever you mean by a datapoint.

But no problem…I will take your adbice and ignore it.



Of course we never said it was going to take over the database world. What we are talking about is around a $12billion SAM out of $60 or $70 billion per year. Eventually, maybe a decade or longer might start to become the majority database type as software comes around to the new paradigm.

Until then, one thing Mongo has going for it is that it can also run tranasactional functions. Even mission critical. For those companies needing to build such functions, that also act n real time, that need to better scale, and need to be built with much greater efficiency (from what I read, we are talking much better efficiency).

They not only have Baidu (who runs their own cloud) but also China Mobile, to go along with an all star group of clients, many of who are putting even mission critical transactional data in the database.

No, Oracle purchasing module is not going to be imported, but many features are being imported from less ancient software structures.

No different than (and really no different) than laparoscopic surgeons who were quite cynical about ISRG. If you are going to critique something, don’t generalize to something that is not even part of the investment thesis.

MongoDB clearly offers great value for things that SQL databases do not. As do all disruptive technologies. They come into existence when the existent structures have difficulties dealing with niche issues, and over time the disruptive technologies become better and better. Same here.

There is no doubt that SQL databases have real issues with many modern data needs.

The real issue is how fast will this grow, how much real competition will there be (if any, talking real competition), and how much can this be monetized.

The demand is out there. For any insider to tell us differently is clearly reflexive bias on their part.

I just read the earnings call. Learned a bit more. Revenues are still quite low actually, $42 million or so for the quarter, so clearly nascent days. Particularly with such an all star list of customers.

I would think that the more the database is used, the more usages will be found for the database, and thus the more it will be used.

I also assume, if Mongo becomes a larger part of the database world, that SQL databases will look to improve their weaknesses to better compete. It always happens. In the end both will co-exist but like with ANET, Mongo will continue to take marketshare in a growing market, as there was only so much Cisco was willing to do. Shall see if Cisco does more in the future, same with SQL databases if they start feeling threatened.



one thing Mongo has going for it is that it can also run tranasactional functions.

Be careful about assuming too much. I believe that Mongo only very recently got multi-document ACID functions, which are essential for any transaction which spans more than one document … which is most financial operations. It could be they now have this covered, but some careful analysis should go into evaluating this.

1 Like