We may earn a commission if you buy through links on this page. It never changes a score or a ranking. How we make money
It's a split decision.
Choose TigerGraph for managed graph workloads priced per GB per month, or self-managed enterprise deployments with Kubernetes and on-premise options. Choose Neo4j for a graph platform with managed and self-managed products, plus a free AuraDB plan and hourly capacity pricing. Both support graph-based AI use cases. Compare costs against your workload: TigerGraph also lists hourly instance rates, while Neo4j’s paid AuraDB plans are priced per GB per hour.
01Side by side
| TigerGraph | Neo4j | |
|---|---|---|
| Starting paid price | $45/GB/month for Savanna | $0.09/GB/hour for Professional |
| Free plan | Community; Savanna Free Trial | AuraDB Free |
| Best for | Managed or self-managed enterprise graph workloads | Graph databases, analytics, and AI applications |
| Core strength | Real-time, governed relationship intelligence | Graph database and knowledge graph tools |
| Learning curve | Not published on the vendor's site | Not published on the vendor's site |
| Integrations and deployment | Kubernetes, AWS, Azure, GCP, and on-premise | Managed and self-managed; cloud availability varies |
| Team and seat costs | No per-seat price listed; usage-based charges | No per-seat price listed; hourly capacity rates |
| Support | Standard and premium support listed on paid plans | Support details not provided in published pricing |
TigerGraph Choose TigerGraph if
- Choose TigerGraph if you need on-premise deployment options.
- Choose TigerGraph if monthly per-GB pricing suits your workload.
- Choose TigerGraph if you need listed premium support options.
Neo4j Choose Neo4j if
- Choose Neo4j if you want a free AuraDB plan.
- Choose Neo4j if hourly capacity pricing fits your cost model.
- Choose Neo4j if managed and self-managed graph products fit your setup.
02Pricing compared
TigerGraph’s managed Savanna plan starts at $45 per GB per month, according to its pricing page. Savanna Business Critical is $126 per GB per month. The page also lists hourly instance rates—$1–$256 for Savanna and $2.80–$499.20 for Business Critical—plus storage at $0.025 per GB per month. Check how those charges apply to your workload before comparing totals. TigerGraph Community is free, with up to 300GB of graph and vector storage on a single server; Enterprise self-managed pricing is custom.
Neo4j’s AuraDB Free costs $0. Its paid AuraDB plans are priced hourly, not monthly: Professional starts at $0.09 per GB per hour with a 1GB minimum, and Business Critical at $0.20 per GB per hour with a 2GB minimum. Those rates are not directly comparable to monthly per-GB prices. Neo4j Virtual Dedicated Cloud is custom-priced.
03Features and depth
Both platforms cover graph databases and graph-based AI. TigerGraph positions its platform around relationship intelligence: the homepage says it can reason across billions of relationships in milliseconds and describes real-time decisions using connected enterprise data. Its feature list includes governance controls such as ACID compliance, fine-grained security, policy enforcement, and provenance tracking, along with GraphRAG support.
Neo4j offers graph databases, analytics, and AI products in managed and self-managed forms. Its listed capabilities include knowledge graphs, graph analytics, graph data science, and GraphRAG. That makes it a broad option for teams that want graph algorithms and connected-data context for AI; the published material does not specify a comparable multi-hop speed claim or list the same governance controls.
Deployment may be a deciding factor. TigerGraph lists Kubernetes-native options across AWS, Azure, GCP, and on-premise environments. Neo4j offers fully managed and self-managed products, while its AuraDB plans list availability on AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.
04Ease of use and learning curve
The available product information does not publish setup times or a direct learning-curve comparison, so we would not treat either platform as the easier choice without checking your team’s skills and deployment needs.
TigerGraph Community lists GSQL, Cypher, and GQL, and provides a single-server option for graph projects. Its enterprise deployment choices include Kubernetes and on-premise environments, which may suit teams already operating those environments but require them to assess that setup themselves.
Neo4j offers AuraDB Free for learning and exploring graphs, with no payment method required, as well as managed and self-managed products. Teams can compare the free plan with their intended production setup, but should note that paid AuraDB pricing is hourly. The published information does not describe migration tools or training resources for either product.
Questions people ask
Which is cheaper, TigerGraph or Neo4j?
There is no clean price comparison without a workload estimate. TigerGraph Savanna starts at $45 per GB per month and also lists hourly instance and storage charges. Neo4j AuraDB Professional starts at $0.09 per GB per hour, with a 1GB minimum. Compare the full bill, not just the listed rates.
Do TigerGraph and Neo4j have free plans?
Yes. TigerGraph lists a free Community edition for a single server, with up to 300GB of graph and vector storage, and a Savanna Free Trial. Neo4j lists AuraDB Free for learning and exploring graphs, with no payment method required. Check each product’s limits against your use case.
Which platform supports GraphRAG?
Both list GraphRAG support. TigerGraph says it uses relationship evidence to ground AI answers in connected enterprise data. Neo4j describes GraphRAG as retrieving context from connected data for AI systems. The published material does not provide a head-to-head comparison of their GraphRAG implementations.
Which has more deployment options?
TigerGraph lists Kubernetes-native deployment across AWS, Azure, GCP, and on-premise environments, as well as managed and self-managed offerings. Neo4j also offers managed and self-managed products; its AuraDB plans list AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud availability. Confirm exact deployment requirements with each vendor.