VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth Reviews

I have been working with VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth for the last two years. My main use case requires logging into the CloudHealth dashboard to review cloud spending, budget status, check cost anomaly alerts, review right-sizing recommendations, identify ideal or unused resources, and validate governance and tagging compliance. I generate or review scheduled reports and coordinate with the cloud and application teams to implement optimized recommendations, which is the day-to-day workflow followed by our cloud operations team and infrastructure instance team.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth has positively impacted our organization by providing centralized visibility into cloud costs and resource utilization across multiple cloud environments. It helps identify under-utilized and ideal resources which we have not been using in the last two to three months, reducing unnecessary cloud spending. The right-sizing recommendations enable me to optimize computer resources without affecting application performance. Budget forecasting and cost anomaly alerts allow me to take proactive actions for expected planned budgets.

Automated dashboards and scheduled reports reduce manual effort required for cloud cost analysis and management reporting. Governance policies improve tagging compliance and increase accountability across teams, strengthening collaboration between infrastructure, finance, and cloud operations by providing a single source of cloud cost information. Overall, it improves operational efficiency, enhances cloud governance, and supports better financial decision-making for our organization.

Our organization achieves approximately twenty to thirty percent cloud cost optimization through right-sizing recommendations, ideal resource cleanup, and improved resource utilization. Automated cost monitoring and budget alerts help prevent unnecessary cloud spending, leading to improved financial governance. The centralized dashboard eliminates the need for manual reviews across multiple cloud portals, reducing operational effort, and automatic reporting saves approximately thirty to forty percent of the time spent on cloud cost analysis and executive reporting. These metrics allow the infrastructure team to focus more on automation initiatives instead of manual monitoring and reporting tasks. Earlier, I spent a lot of time generating reports from our infrastructure tools like resource utilization through BI tools. VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth has helped me achieve twenty to thirty percent cloud cost optimization and save thirty to forty percent of the time.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth's multi-cloud cost management is a standout because it provides a single dashboard to monitor cloud spending across AWS, Azure, and GCP. Instead of logging into multiple cloud platforms or portals, I can analyze costs, trends, and resource utilization across platforms, making cloud financial management much more efficient. The right-sizing recommendation feature continuously analyzes CPU, memory, and resource utilization to recommend appropriately sized virtual machines. This plays a significant role for me as an infrastructure engineer to help reduce over-provisioning, lower cloud costs, and improve resource efficiency without affecting application performance. Cost anomaly detection is another valuable feature, enabling quick investigation of issues such as accidentally deployed resources or runaway workloads before they significantly impact the monthly budget.

Executive dashboards and reporting, along with governance and policy management, are also crucial features. Governance and policy management help enforce governance policies by identifying missing tags, non-compliant resources, public storage, and other configuration issues, ensuring organizations maintain security and operational standards across different cloud environments like GCP, AWS, and Azure. The customized dashboards provide real-time visibility into cloud costs, reduce optimization opportunities, and show compliance status while scheduling reports to minimize manual efforts for reporting and provide stakeholders with actionable insights.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth is a powerful cloud management platform, but there are areas for improvement. I would prefer to see more AI-driven insights that not only recommend optimization but also suggest automated remediation actions. Real-time cost synchronization could be faster, as billing data sometimes has delays. More customized dashboards and report templates would help teams tailor their needs better. Kubernetes cost visibility could be more granular for centralized workloads. Integration with ITSM and automation tools such as ServiceNow and Ansible could be enhanced. Simplifying initial onboarding and policy configuration would also improve the experience for new users. These enhancements would make the platform even more efficient for enterprise cloud operations.

This tool is a mature and relevant cloud management platform with several areas that could be enhanced. I would prefer to see more advanced AI capabilities providing predictive insights and automated remediation for common optimization tasks. Better, faster synchronization of cloud billing and utilization data would enable near real-time cost monitoring. I want more customizable dashboards and executive reports tailored for different stakeholders such as FinOps, infrastructure, and management teams. Improving Kubernetes container cost visibility at the pod level is also necessary.

I would prefer to see stronger AI-driven automation, faster real-time cost updates, more customizable dashboards, deeper Kubernetes cost visibility, enhanced DevOps integrations, and a simpler onboarding process as areas needing improvement. These enhancements would further increase operational efficiency and make the platform more valuable for enterprise cloud management.

I have been working with VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth since I joined two years ago.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth is stable and reliable in my experience. The dashboards and reporting services are consistently available, and I have not experienced any major platform outages affecting my daily operations. Data synchronization with AWS is generally reliable, although billing information may have slight delays due to some cloud provider update cycles. The platform handles large cloud environments efficiently with minimal performance issues. Scheduled reports, governance policies, and cost optimization recommendations run consistently. Regular product updates introduce new features while maintaining platform stability. Overall, I provide a stability rating of nine out of ten, as it meets my operational requirements with minimal issues.

For scalability, I provide a rating of nine point five out of ten. VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth is well-suited for medium to large-scale enterprise environments, capable of managing multiple AWS accounts and thousands of cloud resources and workloads across different regions from a single dashboard. As our cloud infrastructure grows, onboarding additional AWS accounts and resources is straightforward without requiring major architectural changes. The platform continues to provide consistent performance, reporting, and governance as the environment scales. It also supports role-based access control, allowing different business units and teams to manage their own cloud resources securely. Overall, I rate scalability at nine point five out of ten.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth provides reliable enterprise-level customer support through the Broadcom support organization. In my experience, the support team has been responsive while handling product configuration, integration, and technical issues. The engineers are knowledgeable and provide practical guidance for resolving cloud management and governance-related problems. The platform also has a comprehensive knowledge base, documentation, and community resources that help resolve common issues quickly. I rate the support quality as nine out of ten. Faster response times for complex issues would further improve the experience.

Before choosing VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth, I understand that the organization evaluated other options, specifically Flexera One. The comparison was based on multi-cloud support and cost optimization features as it was being used in other teams. The organization chose VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth for its centralized visibility, governance, and scalability as well as the ease of integration, while other native tools lacked these central management capabilities.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth is deployed as a SaaS-based cloud management platform in my organization. I integrate AWS and Azure cloud environments using IAM roles for AWS and service principals for Azure with read-only permissions, ensuring secure API-based access without installing any agents. After onboarding the cloud accounts, the platform automatically synchronizes with cloud inventory, billing, utilization, and tagging information. I then configure governance policies, budget and cost allocation rules, and alert notifications based on organizational standards. Custom dashboards and scheduled reports are created for the infrastructure, FinOps, and management teams.

The deployment process is straightforward and does not impact production workloads because it is agentless. Once configured, CloudHealth serves as my centralized platform for cloud cost optimization, governance, and operational reporting.

I purchase VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth through an authorized VMware Broadcom partner, acting as a reseller.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth reduces cloud cost by approximately twenty to thirty percent through right-sizing recommendations, identifying ideal resources, and improving resource utilization. I achieved savings by removing unused EBS volumes, old snapshots, ideal load balancers, and oversized EC2 instances. These alerts help reduce and detect unexpected spending early, preventing unnecessary monthly expenses. Budget forecasting has improved financial planning and reduced cost overruns. Overall, the platform delivers measurable cost savings while enhancing governance and operational efficiency. CloudHealth consistently identifies optimization opportunities, resulting in an estimated twenty to thirty percent reduction in cloud infrastructure costs.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth follows a subscription-based SaaS licensing model, and pricing is typically based on the organization's cloud spend of the resources being managed. In my opinion, the pricing is suitable for medium and large enterprises operating in multi-cloud environments that require advanced financial operations and governance capabilities. Although the initial licensing and cost may seem higher than native cloud tools, the savings achieved through cost optimization and resource right-sizing can provide a strong return on investment. This platform reduces manual effort through centralized reporting and automation, adding operational value. However, for smaller organizations with limited cloud infrastructure, the pricing may be relatively expensive. Overall, the licensing justifies the platform's comprehensive features and scalability for enterprise-level cloud management capabilities, making it a good value for organizations focused on long-term cloud cost optimization and governance.

My advice is to clearly define cloud cost management and governance objectives before implementing VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth. This ensures that your AWS environment follows a consistent tagging strategy, as accurate tags are essential for meaningful cost allocation and reporting. Start by onboarding a few cloud accounts and validating dashboards, policies, optimization, and recommendations before expanding across the organization. Involve the infrastructure, cloud operations, security, and finance operations teams early in the deployment to maximize the platform's value. Regularly review right-sizing recommendations, ideal resources, and budget alerts, rather than treating the tool as just a reporting solution. For organizations with multiple AWS accounts and significant cloud spending, VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth delivers excellent visibility and governance as a long-term cost optimization tool.

I provide an overall review rating of nine out of ten for VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth is used primarily to provide users with a seamless working environment without losing connectivity by offering a solution that virtualizes their computing environment. It is used for cloud and virtualization computing, allowing multiple virtual machines based on different servers, with each acting as an independent machine with its own operating system. It consolidates hardware and helps in reducing IT costs.

Most people are going for a SaaS solution with VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth, but in some cases, such as one petroleum institution, they had regulatory binding that prevented them from deploying their data on SaaS, so they created the entire setup on-premises. It depends on the client itself and the requirement. If it is a banking institution, most of them are now on SaaS and don't have a problem. Very few insist on keeping it on-premises because data is normally secure whether it is hosted here or there.

Customers do utilize a security and compliance framework with VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth because larger institutions won't move forward without it. They choose VMware to ensure a tested and foolproof secure environment. They comply with regulatory standards that go along with it, such as VMware Cloud Foundation, which is a significant product with trust policies and all, making it quite good.

The CloudHealth Unified Dashboard helps streamline cloud management practices by allowing the IT team to manage the environment effectively. It shows if updates are done, whether there is downtime, or if there is a delay, indicating the reason for it. Dashboards are essential; without them, you are sitting in a mirage, not knowing what is happening. With the dashboard, you can quickly identify issues, such as red points and different types of curves indicating problems. This allows us to act on the problem at the very initial stage rather than waiting for the entire system to stop.

The weak points of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth are that while the product is quite capable, cost can be an issue at times. The learning curve is steep because people like to take their own time to understand and roll out things, which creates an overhead in getting people to understand the system. There are also bottlenecks within operations where we face challenges that can lead to delays in implementation.

I have been familiar with VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth for almost two years, while there were people who have been using it for definitely six, seven years or more.

Technical support from VMware, or better to say Broadcom, is usually quick and prompt. I don't encounter significant issues since they provide 24/7 support based on the SLA with the client, ensuring the response times are matched accordingly. If the agreement is for four hours, eight hours, or the next business day, responses usually come. We don't typically face situations where institutions are halted from working. Broadcom often comes up with quick rollbacks or informs us if something requires a patch or updates, and usually problems won't happen until instigated by local issues. If local engineers cannot solve the problem, they log a case for assistance from Broadcom or Omnica.

From my side, we needed only a team of three people to deploy VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth in such a large banking environment facing around 100 different departments. The rollout was similar; they had different clusters in the bank, and within those clusters, there were different branches and different zones. We started doing one by one, and we completed all of them. The first one was difficult, and then we began training the users with a train the trainer type of concept. We trained the key members of the team to help us out. There was a project management team from our side and a project management team on the other side working together. We had a steering committee and standard meetings, so it went fine.

This project initially started with a 16-week timeframe, but it ended up taking nine months to complete. The initial four months were dedicated to discussions and getting approval. We had only planned 15 days for UAT, but it took two months to complete. There was significant delay in that one. They wanted to close the project and quickly roll it out, so we had an urgency to finish things faster. Now that the solution is live, they have customized reports, dashboards, and other things, matching the regulatory bank's reporting requirements. We are trying to align the system's attributes with the required reports from the State Bank. It was time-consuming, but eventually, we were successful in completing the project with a certain delay.

There are different departments that get involved in the requirements for VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth, and as we go for the implementation, we have to seek permissions from them. We have to get some ports opened up for accessibility. However, SaaS is an elegant solution because it is available and always updated. On-premises requires newer updates to be installed manually. SaaS is always a better solution; newer versions or new insights or new features come in automatically. You don't have to wait for a newer version for getting the new things. Most institutions are now going for SaaS, and it is faster and less difficult to implement. You just roll it out and do configurations, and that's it. Very few customizations are done on SaaS. If you go on-premises and people are old school, they will go for a lot of customization, new screens, additional forms, and additional reports. That will clutter a lot of things, and getting newer upgrades becomes a problem since it won't work until you port everything to the new version. Things get delayed, so SaaS is much easier. The rollout is easier if you have a large institution base; for example, we were doing an implementation of an ITSM software for a bank with 33,000 users. We went with SaaS and it went perfectly.

Policy-driven management is part of the implementation of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth. The audit and security team will not let you move forward until it conforms to both their requirements and compliance.

I measure the effectiveness of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth resource optimization using various metrics, including the framework where the entire VMware Cloud Foundation and VMware vSphere Foundation are working. Both platforms have interoperability metrics which conform to the standard requirements and suggested guidelines from VMware and Broadcom, and we follow the same.

I have given this review a rating of 9 out of 10.

This product was used for financial management in my company because I was working for a FinTech. VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth's use case is related to financial control and resource governance across multi-cloud environments, including reducing waste, optimizing spend, and driving accountability.

The most valuable features of this solution include the drive for accountability because we can allocate cloud costs back to specific business units or teams through showback and chargeback. Additionally, reduced waste is achieved because we can identify unused or underutilized resources and receive recommendations for resizing instances.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth's unified dashboard helps streamline cloud management practices by unifying everything needed in one dashboard, such as metrics, instance workings, machines, and servers. All of this in just one dashboard is very helpful to improve agility and resolve issues, especially for the workloads.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth helps manage compliance risks by preventing threats, stopping attacks, detecting threats, and securing workloads or endpoints where customers will be using the endpoints. The positive impact on my organization is substantial because we can reduce waste, optimize expenses, drive accountability, and secure the budget from unnecessary cloud costs.

I do not see any flaws in VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth. Everything is fine for me. The performance is acceptable, and the layout is acceptable. It is very user-friendly, and there is nothing that needs to be improved from my perspective. The pricing of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth could be better, but for the service being provided, I believe the price is fair.

I have been working with VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth for four years.

The stability and reliability of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth are good because this solution makes it very easy to optimize costs. All companies want to optimize costs when using cloud solutions. It is easy to get lost on cost when using cloud services because some companies acquire things they do not need and pay for them unnecessarily. With VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth, I can help optimize services and identify the pain points where cost reduction is necessary. Regarding accountability, it is also great.

The scalability of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth is great because all components are very user-friendly, and the open-source code is also user-friendly. The scalability is good. The backbone of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth is scalability; it is very easy to scale. It is very easy to adapt.

I do not often communicate with the technical support of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth because I have never needed to call them.

I have used the official documentation, guides, and manuals for this tool for examples involving installation and customization. Overall, the documentation is good. They have all the acronyms and glossary. It is very interactive, with examples on how you can do this or that, and there are the do's and the don'ts.

Neutral

I did not use a different solution for the same use cases before VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth. We were using other kinds of cloud products, but they were very different from VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth.

I did not participate in the initial setup of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth.

I have seen a return on investment with VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth. My company was very happy using this, and they did not buy another solution, so I believe they have seen benefits using this VMWare solution.

It is difficult for me to share examples of the return on investment I have noticed because this is a management department issue. They do not share those kinds of things with the employees; otherwise, the employees will ask for more money. I do not have those records.

When trying to choose a product for these use cases, I was only looking at VMware because I am used to using VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth, and I do not know much about other vendors. I prefer this one.

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth's analytics in understanding cloud usage trends and expense forecasts is normally more for marketing staff and analyzing production servers in my case, so I am not very experienced on that point.

The metrics used to measure the effectiveness of VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth's resource optimization features are programmatic because I am a developer, and we do some calculations according to the requirements. With those requirements, we can create a programmatic enablement to calculate the metrics. It is a very complex procedure to explain in a phone call.

Some companies may not be capable of affording this product. I would rate this review a 7.

I use the solution daily, multiple hours a day to identify possible savings by analyzing the various displays as well as the policies for possible cost savings for our customers.

CloudHelth has helped our organization with trying to right-size virtual machines based on current utilization and making recommendations for DM proper sizing and possible reservation purchases.

We use dashboards quite heavily, but one of the features that have really stood out is some of the policies we've created to alert us of particular situations.

The export features regarding CSV files and specifically around identifying savings plans have room for improvement, as well as the drill-down features for reservation utilization.

I have been using the solution for ten months.

The stability is great. We have not had any downtime that I am aware of.

The scalability has been excellent.

We have seen a return on investment with the solution.

I give the cost of the solution an eight out of ten.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

We have a multi-tenancy deployment of 30-plus clouds. We have plans to increase the usage in the future.

In order to get the full effect of the solution's capabilities, it needs to be used on a daily basis.

Our primary use case is for chargeback of cloud cost.

The most valuable thing I have found is the cost saving recommendations.

It would be helpful to have a mobile version or a tablet version, especially for people who are outside of the office. We are missing role-based access. The team should be able to see only the cost related to their spending and not the entire organization's spending. So the people who are logging into the application should see only their expenses.

I have been using CloudHealth for the past year.

The stability of CloudHealth is good.

The scalability is currently limited.  They increase the limits in the backend. They have some limitations around what they can group the data based on, and every time we hit those limits, we have to create a support ticket to get it resolved.

Technical support is very good and I am able to receive technical support during my local working hours.

Positive

We had our own in-house data warehousing tool. There was definitely an improvement in implementing CloudHealth. We have been in touch frequently to understand the solution better.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was not difficult and I did not experience any issues.

The pricing is competitive and while other products are good they are considerably more expensive. The license they provide is a spending based license.

We were looking at Apptio Cloudability however the pricing was the determining factor. Apptio Cloudability has better granular visibility of data that is missing in CloudHealth.

If they are not looking to use role-based access and they are just looking for cloud management, CloudHealth will do the job, but if it is specifically for rule-based access, they should consider other options. I would rate CloudHealth an eight out of ten.

I am using CloudHealth for my data and different operational activities. The solution creates reports for different projects. It provides understanding and transparency into the cloud costs. I get the costs at 4,000 aggregate and at the resource ID level. CloudHealth also provides analysis of the transfer service per account.

The solution is useful for cloud transparency and visibility in reports and dashboards that I have generated, especially the pre-populated dashboards.

I would like to see better integration from CloudHealth to create an easier setup and implementation.

I have been using CloudHealth since 2022.

The solution is stable.

I have not faced any challenges with scalability of CloudHealth.

The initial setup of CloudHealth is a medium level of difficulty. It is API integrated. It is still easier when compared to other solutions, but still challenging to get access to because you need to collaborate with multiple teams within the organization.

Deployment is one click because CloudHealth is on the cloud. Once you have collected all the information required for integration, it is a one-click solution.

CloudHealth has a subscription-based model.

CloudHealth is VMware and has a good product team. The features keep growing. They have even included GCP. As far as a feature and product solution, it is one of the most widely used CNPs, I believe, after Apptio Cloudability. 

Also, because the solution is with VMware, most GSIs are already partnered with VMware, so you get support.

I rate the solution an eight and a half out of ten overall.

Primarily, the end-user gets a perspective of their cloud usage and up-to-date billing. That's one use case. 

On top of that, there are multiple reports which I use daily, to track usage or to lay out performance optimization and cost optimization.

The cost and performance optimization reports are the most valuable aspect of the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution can scale.

We find the product to be stable. 

The pricing is rather competitive right now.

The performance and accuracy of Cloud Health need to be improved. Right now, the data is not very accurate. We have to always validate it with some other data. Accuracy is something that is very important to us, especially in terms of cost management. 

Sometimes the tools aren't as responsive as I would like. they are occasionally slow. Sometimes it takes ten seconds to load the tools. 

Technical support could be better.

I'd prefer it if the solution was a bit cheaper.

I've used the solution for the last two years or so. It's been a while now. 

The product is a stable product. While the data itself is not yet accurate, and we have to always look at and validate the data, the solution does give good information sometimes.

The solution is very easy to scale. 

We have about 20 people that work with the solution in our organization.

Technical support isn't as good as I would like it to be. They need faster response times and they need to provide more qualified personnel. 

I also have experience with Central ITCS, which I've used for a few months.

Both the products have a good amount of features and functionality. Which is better depends upon what kind of usage your end customer needs. For example, if I'm a startup and I'm not interested in a lot of features, CloudHealth is a good option. If I'm only interested in a couple of features, then I may go with Central ITCS. 

The initial setup is a simple process. For any technical person, if the steps are provided, it's very easy. There isn't too much complexity involved. 

Maintenance is not a big concern for the end-users as it is a cloud-based service. Updates, for example, happen automatically and any new features, et cetera, are announced ahead of time.  

There is a technical team member associated with this product, and they really have helped us with the onboarding process.

There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fee. The pricing, overall, is pretty reasonable. 

I have compared the solution to other products. I would say that Cloud Health has tremendous scope, and is on many clouds, including Google Cloud, Amazon, AWS, and Azure. It may even be on Oracle soon. Its scope is great and it's a very adaptable solution. It employs its features more effectively than other options in the market. 

We're an end-user of the product.

We are using the latest version of this solution. 

I would recommend this product for people who are more established in this cloud business and would like to help their end customers in optimizing for faster performance.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Technical support is very good. 

The solution is very good as an infrastructure as a service.

The product offers very good visibility.

The solution is good for cloud cost management.

CloudHealth needs to start building out Turbonomic-types of features that help the customers who are using CloudHealth really understand everything down to the server level, the virtual machine level. They need to be able to illustrate the performance of the machine. As a customer, I want to be able to log into one tool and be able to look all the way down to a virtual machine that's running in Azure or AWS and see, is it running at 80% utilization or 20%? If it's only running 20% utilization, well, maybe I should move that workload off of that machine and combine it with another machine and remove that machine, therefore lowering my overall Azure spend as I've just eliminated a server. However, I need that insight in order to make that call. 

Oftentimes, when you look at multiple application layers, if you can identify six or eight or ten different servers that are just underutilized and can eliminate them from your fleet, well, you just dropped your Azure bill by a thousand dollars a week. The savings they could offer clients could be quite substantial. However, CloudHealth doesn't have that capability. They can't reach down to that level right now. That's why you've got to bring in Turbonomic. They can reach in at that virtual machine level to tell me if the machine is being truly utilized. I'd be able to understand if I should go ahead and eliminate it from my fleet.

If I took the remediation recommendations from Turbonomic, and I implemented that into my Azure environment, and then came back and analyzed it from CloudHealth, well, now I could see that that overall Azure spend has dropped by 10%. However, ideally, CloudHealth should have those tools built-in just to help me optimize my fleet on the fly. And then I should see that cost justification.

CloudHealth could expand into is the SaaS side of it. Right now, CloudHealth is primarily focused on the infrastructure as a service players and is helping to analyze, how the infrastructure as a service virtual environment maps to the customers, to the needs. The opportunity that CloudHealth has is if you're talking to somebody about their public cloud spend, oftentimes the customer thinks of that as not just the infrastructure as a service, but they also look at that from a software as a service. One of the biggest challenges that we also see in the enterprise accounts that we work with is the SaaS sprawl is almost out of control. It's as bad as the infrastructure as a service sprawl, where people are given the credentials to their Azure tenant, and now they're spitting out virtual machines for all kinds of stuff.

Unless you really have better visibility and control in that, you just don't know what's going on until you get the bill. The same problem is happening in the SaaS side where, if you have 500 employees, traditionally that company goes out and buys Office 365 times 500, and they just give everybody the same thing. At the end of the day, maybe everybody doesn't need an Office 365 E5 plan. Maybe a third of the company needs E5, a third could get by with E3 and a third could get by with E1. If you optimize that Office 365 footprint, along with all of the other SaaS applications that you may be attaching to that Office 365, like Trend Micro for security, or Metallic for backup, there is more money to be saved.

Right now, CloudHealth doesn't give me any visibility into that SaaS side of the model. They give me a view into the infrastructure as a service side and the cost analytics and reporting. If I could use that one toolset that not only helps me optimize my infrastructure as a service and also have visibility across my SaaS environment, to me that would be the ideal situation. That way, I've got one platform, one toolset that helps me manage my cloud spend across SaaS and IaaS. Right now, for the tools that are out there, it's either IaaS or SaaS. And there's not a lot of players in the SaaS management space at this point, there are only four or five companies that I'm aware of.

We became a reseller about a year or so ago. We've been dealing with it for a while.

We've actually had to engage with technical support a few different times. Whether it's just configuring customer accounts correctly or troubleshooting, it's always been very good. There was a little bit of a hiccup during the transition when VMware was acquiring CloudHealth where I think there were just some of the procedural and operational processes where we had some account managers change. 

When we reached out to the technical account manager that we were assigned at the time, he had been shuffled around a bit. We were routed from one person to another and had to keep getting people up to speed. However, that got ironed out. 

The ones that I have been personally using are CloudHealth and CloudCheckr, however, those are more around the cloud cost analytics, the cloud cost management. Those companies are starting to, change a bit. You've got Turbonomic and companies like that, that are coming from the on-prem asset level up, where you would use Turbonomics to crawl internal VMware infrastructure types of environments and tag specific applications. Let's say that I'm trying to think of how I'm going to migrate my marketing application from my on-prem environment to the cloud. That marketing application is built at three tiers. You've got a web tier, an application tier, and a database tier. That's multiple servers, multiple layers of applications. How do you analyze what that footprint looks like so I can make a fair approach to what I'm going to need in an Azure or an AWS cloud environment to move that application?

Turbonomic has approached it from that perspective where they come in and they ask questions such as how many IOPS is that application consuming? What's the performance of the servers at a CPU and storage and a memory level, so that they can actually map that into equivalent Amazon EC2 servers or Azure servers of sizes of X, Y, or Z.

That's where Turbonomic has really approached it from that kind of foundational infrastructure up whereas a CloudHealth or a CloudCheckr have approached it more from an application already being in the cloud and drilling down to costs. 

Now we're trying to figure out how to optimize that footprint. What I'm seeing is both those types of companies are starting to meet in the middle where Turbonomic is now starting to add features around cloud cost management and CloudHealth is starting to get down into the Turbonomic side of assessment of what you're trying to move to the cloud.

I can start to see the melding of that space over time, where there are more and more of these on-prem application performance management APS-type of applications. They are starting to bleed up into the cloud and the cloud and cloud applications are starting to bleed down that on-prem world.

We're a reseller. There are two different models. We're a reseller of CloudHealth. We're a reseller of Dell. We're a reseller of VMware. We also use those products internally.

We use it daily. It's one of our core tools within our Zones Cloud Platforms tool bag, when we're looking at how we help customers optimize their cloud spend across their Azure and AWS environments today.

It's a cloud-native application.

In terms of CloudHealth, I have not dug underneath the covers as to where do they actually host it. CloudHealth just got bought by VMware about six or eight months ago, or maybe almost a year ago now. I'm pretty sure that they built on a public cloud. I'm just not sure which public cloud they actually built it on.

I would advise new users to get a demo, take a look at it, dig into some of the analytics and the reporting. It's really one of those tools that you'd need to have hands-on time with. You can go through the presentations, you can look at the high level, but you really need to have a public account, an AWS account, a Google account, an Amazon account, and then tie that to your CloudHealth environment during the demo, or during your proof of concept. When you test, you can make changes in your environment and see how it replicates and how CloudHealth presents that data back to you. That real-time reviewing and seeing the cause and the effect is what really helps you understand what the platform can do. And it helps you have a better understanding of its features and capabilities and how in-depth the reporting and the analytics are compared to a CloudCheckr or other third-party applications that are out there.

The last piece I'd also throw out there is that one of the biggest challenges I think that people are having right now, when it comes to a CloudHealth or a cloud cost analytics product, is that most of the independents have been acquired. There was a product called Cloudyn. That got bought by Microsoft. Now Cloudyn's baked into Azure in what they call Azure Cost Management. Google's acquired a couple of companies over the years, and they have their Google Cloud Cost Management and multi-cloud orchestration and all this fun stuff. CloudHealth got bought by VMware. CloudCheckr is one of the only ones that's still independent in that cloud cost management space. Outside of that, there's some smaller niche players, however, it's getting hard to find an independent. You pretty much have to go and buy one of these products from VMware.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

If they can start to improve how they work across other SaaS applications - not just infrastructure as a service - they would get higher marks. If I rated them just from an infrastructure as a service play, I'd probably put them at a nine or a 9.5 simply due to the fact that they do a really, really good job in that space. However, it's a bit of a niche. It's an important niche and it really is helpful in that specific spot, however, it leaves me having to want to find another tool to do the other half of the job and where ideally if it was one tool, I'd take that eight up to a nine and a half. As it is, right now, I rate it as an eight as it doesn't give me all of that features. I have to use multiple tools to get the end result I'm looking for.

The use case is to produce a cost report for us so that we can optimize costs.

This solution is deployed on a public cloud.

The Perspectives feature could be better. I would like to have more automation and flexibility to put in data and react to a certain event. Right now, it's very rigid if you design a report in a certain way, and there are cross-restrictions.

I'd like some API, but we have found that there are still limitations. 

We've been using this solution for two years.

It's stable. For report presentation, it's been fast. Sometimes there are unexpected errors.

It's scalable. So far, we have used it on multiple accounts. It's quite easy.

Technical support is good and has been responsive.

I would rate then 4 out of 5.

Compared to AWS, the historic data on CloudHealth is a lot more helpful. From the AWS perspective, I think the historic data is not able to give us the full set of data. It would make a difference if we could automate the reports when we wanted to.

Setup is straightforward. 

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

I would recommend CloudHealth, but I think AWS and other solutions are catching up. 

We primarily use the solution for some kind of customer management, to monitor health conditions in a GCP. We also provide the A-Labs Asia GCP services to our enterprise client.

We are able to create an internal price of the product that we can then sell to clients. We get the cost plan at a good discount and then resell it with a mark up to our enterprise-level clients. This flexibility in pricing is one of the solution's best features.

The solution doesn't offer the best functionality, unfortunately. Some features just simply aren't on offer. The solution needs to offer more product milestones.

They need to improve the solution's integration with GCP. In terms of the integration with GCP, they haven't found a way that they can fully integrate with GCP. That is their weakness, and they should improve it.

The billing integration is quite a difficult process. Part of the sale is convincing the client about how seamless the process is, and right now, it's not. Enterprise clients cannot review their billing records freely, and that's a real issue.

Migration can be hard. They need to offer some better migration tools to make the process much faster and easier.

They need to provide an on-premise version to telecom operators. Currently, they are not. They didn't offer on-premise solutions and yet, it's what our clients require. It affects telecoms in particular because of data privacy and traditional company policies that do not like the idea of transferring information to the cloud.

We've been working with the solution for two months now.

The solution is very stable. There are no problems at all with its reliability. There's no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash.

I believe the solution to be scalable. I don't think there are any scalability issues at all, and organizations that need to expand should have no problem doing so.

While most of our clients are enterprise level, it may be a solution that could work for smaller or more medium-sized enterprises, depending on their comfort levels with the price points.

We've reached out to technical support in the past and were very satisfied with the results. they have been great. They're very responsive and knowledgeable.

We have some experience with RackWare and Red Hat. Right now, I believe this solution to be number one in the market. It's great for central management. We can manage more than one client on a cloud quite easily. It also has the most features out of the three.

The initial setup is very easy, however, we need to get our enterprise customer to be migrated into our organization. That's the difficult thing, due to the fact that our enterprise clients have their own organization admin in each public cloud. It's very difficult to convince our enterprise clients to switch over.

However, once they agree, the migration and necessary processes are very easy.

Deployment, however, is a bit complex. It's not easy to deploy it in a quick way, due to the fact that we have to build an integration between CloudHealth to our telecom billing systems. That's difficult. The telecom billing system is very complicated.

We handle the implementation for our clients. We have some integrations ourselves that we handle, however, we do get some external help for some other integrations that need to be done. This is because the billing from each public cloud does not directly go through to the public vendor, and therefore have to go through a local agent. It requires an external specialist.

The solution can be quite expensive. We tend to charge the clients and make some money on the margins, however, overall, it's a pricey option.

We're CloudHealth partners and resellers of the solution.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using, however, I do believe it to be the most updated version.

New users need to be aware if they decide to go with this solution, that the migration won't exactly be easy.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall.