Azure Cost Management Reviews

Azure Cost Management helps us analyze the data on service usage and decide how to go ahead with the recommendations. You can automate it by writing custom automation scripts. We're still evaluating how to implement Cost Management in parallel with Turbonomic to find out what suits us best.

We're using Cost Management for rightsizing our Azure capability. At the moment, our virtual machines in Azure are set up using templates, so they're not rightsized to be cost-effective. We need to control our costs.

We need tools to manage and understand how to rightsize and save money. On the other side, we also need to know where we don't have enough resources and how much we need to spend to improve service. Our team has about six people monitoring budgets and cost management. It's six engineers looking to optimize and manage costs.

Azure Cost Management is integrated into Azure products. It's a built-in function that Microsoft makes available to help you get an idea of how much money you're spending. Within Azure, you have a thing called a reserved instance. Instead of paying as you go, Microsoft offers a discount if you buy a lot of resources in advance. That's called a reserved instance.

The built-in reports from Azure Cost Management aren't intelligent. It will estimate where you could potentially save money, but it's not like Turbonomic, which has a smart engine. It is dynamically managing and automating the transition to the right cost model. It's a dynamic cost management module. 

It should be dynamic and adaptable instead of static. Azure should allow you to scale up and scale down on demand. Sometimes if you decide not to pay, it will affect your performance. The more you spend, the more resources you get.

I've been using Azure Cost Management for less than a year. We have been using it for the last couple of months. It is constantly developing as a function within Azure. This cost management module we're using now was not available half a year ago.

This is a Microsoft cloud service, so it can scale up as much as you can afford. 

We're paying for premium support, so there's no issue.

We started with Turbonomic running on-prem but on an evaluation basis. We're evaluating Turbonomic and Azure Cost Management side by side to see the best tool to use. We don't want to use two.

The good thing about Azure Cost Management is that we don't have to pay extra because it's a built-in function, but it takes more resources to manage, and it's not dynamic. Turbonomic has a small cost, but it's not very much and gives us much more functionality. Turbonomic is an artificial intelligence kind of advisor. It will say, "Okay, these are all the machines. This is what you're paying, but you need to do this and this." Then you can then automate your cost savings.

Azure Cost Management provides suggestions for what to do, whereas Turbonomic offers cost monitoring, and it can adjust VMs on the fly. Azure gives you an overview and tells you how much to invest to save money. It's a lengthy process because there's no backend logic to automate and make the best decision for you. Turbonomic does this now. It will analyze the same data as Azure Cost Management. It knows what you're running and what you're paying for it.

There's no setup. It's a built-in product that comes with Azure cloud services. It's enabled by default, but you have to configure it to run reports and analyses. It's not like Turbonomic, which is a third-party product that requires you to purchase a license.

I rate Azure Cost Management seven out of 10. Cloud computing services are expensive, and if you're not aware of what you're doing, you can run up a costly bill. It is essential to have, but you need to know the performance you need for the machines you're running in Azure. You have to tailor it to your budget.

Some companies don't do cost management because of the overhead. They're quite happy to pay for things to be running. It all depends. If you're running machines in Azure that make you a lot of money, then cost management is always good. In our case, we're a charity, so we need to be efficient with our money.

We primarily sell the solution to our clients. We also have our own solution. We do cost reporting including budgets and budget alerts and unused services like SQL databases, ABMs, managed disk, Cosmos DB, service plan and usage, and the detailing of all of that.

We don't actually use the Azure Cost Management features. We have our own capabilities. We put our own technology on top of Azure as Azure doesn't deliver a really good cost optimization, so our customers come to us to enhance what they're potentially doing inside their Azure platform.

We do AWS and Azure. We do it all automatically to identify cost remediation or optimization targets and then put into automation or policy automation to continue to remediate based on tagging, subscriptions, service type, and a whole bunch of other things.

The policy-based remediation is probably the biggest area where Azure is lacking and that's why we sell a lot of our technology to our customers.

We don't really use the Azure tools that much. We look at the underlying services themselves. I don't really go into the Azure console and therefore I don't know about specific missing features. It's actually quite good as a solution. It's actually pretty reasonable. However, it just doesn't have the automation that's required at scale.

We've been in business since 2013, therefore, we've been using the solution for about seven years.

We need more automation. Otherwise, our clients can't do what they need to do, and, in that sense, the solution doesn't really work for our purposes.

Scalability isn't a problem per se, however, it comes back to the policy-based stuff. A lot of our customers can't use a manual interface to do what needs to be done. They need automation to do it. The solution in general lacks that capability. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to scale.

We don't really contact technical support as we have our own platforms that handle things. We don't require their assistance.

We're a cloud management company. I run sales, so I am not using the solution to any great technical extent.

We have a technical relationship with Azure. We're very integrated with Azure. Not just from a Cost Management perspective, but also from orchestrated Azure services. We're an extra service delivery platform. We actually hook into Azure, Alibaba, GCP, AWS, OpenStack, Nutanix, VMware. We're hooked into 27 different public cloud providers and private hypervisor solutions.

The solution is a SaaS-based product.

We run our own platform. We basically have a SaaS service. We connect into Azure subscriptions or Azure EA or CSP, and the customer will then provide us with credentials, and then we would basically automate all of the customer mediation across Azure. We would identify approximate remediation times as suggested across many different services, and then automatically put in policy-based workflows that would continue to remediate the services deployed within the Azure environment.

We do certify our platform with the Azure certification programs. We are certified in the marketplace in terms of connecting to the marketplace and their APIs. We look at deeper aspects of the product and read up on technical support about the Azure console front end.

Overall, I would recommend it to small and medium businesses. I wouldn't recommend it to large enterprises due to the lack of automation.

I do quite like the product and would rate it seven out of ten.

Azure Cost Management is being used for the infrastructure services our customers have in terms of how we can best optimize them and how we can propose the solution to customers, for example, if there are on-premises workloads that can be moved to the cloud, etc.

What I like the most about Azure Cost Management is that it's similar to a native service, and it has very well-defined product features, particularly if a customer is moving to Azure, then it gives proper insight in terms of compatibility and what benefits a customer can get from the solution.

What would make Azure Cost Management better is a more flexible GUI that would allow users to provide more input. Another area for improvement in the solution is its reporting. The report it provides should be easy to understand.

Azure Cost Management is a very stable solution. My company didn't have any problems in terms of stability.

Azure Cost Management is a scalable solution. As it's integrated with all Azure services, it's scalable.

My team never contacted technical support for Azure Cost Management because the solution has very good documentation and guides on the website, so there were never any problems with it.

The initial setup for Azure Cost Management was straightforward. My team implemented it and it was very straightforward. The solution didn't take much time to onboard.

We implemented Azure Cost Management in-house.

At the moment, I don't remember the licensing cost for Azure Cost Management.

My company explored the features of Azure Cost Management, used the solution, and continues to provide consulting to customers. The decision-making of whether to use the solution or not is left to the customers after my company gives options. My company also configures Azure Cost Management and gives guidance to customers.

More than ten to fifteen clients are using the solution.

Azure Cost Management is a solution my company can recommend. Wherever it is required, my company would recommend it.

My rating for Azure Cost Management is eight out of ten.

The interface is good, and it's easy to manage.

They can optimize some of the features.

Optimization and scalability could be increased.

Also, the licensing cost and transitional cost can be reduced.

I have been using this solution for almost one year.

We are using the latest version.

This is a stable product.

This is a scalable solution.

We have approximately 500 users in our organization.

Technical support with Microsoft is good.

Previously, we did not use another solution.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It can take one to two hours to deploy depending on the configurations.

There is very little maintenance required.

We used an integrator to help with the implementation of this solution.

Based on the transitional cost we charge, it's not expensive, but could be better.

We have our license for one year. We will use this solution during that time, after that, we will evaluate other solutions that are available in the market and decide if we will continue or move to another solution. 

I would recommend this product to anyone who is deploying to the cloud.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We provide this solution for all of our customers. We have been providing it since it was released. We are using it to assist our customers.

The amount of customers we have reached has increased.

The most valuable feature is that our customers can see their consumption in real time. Even though we have a couple of analytics provided by our company, those are not in real time.

I haven't detected anything that needs improvement, but any solution could be improved. 

It's stable.

It's scalable.

We used a different solution, but we switched because the one provided by Microsoft is free.

It was straightforward. It's embedded on the Azure Portal, so there's no installation time. There's nothing to be installed.

Since we are a DC, we only provide this solution to customers. They pay our fees, so there's not too much invested in this.

The solution is free. It's part of having an Azure subscription.

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

My clients use Azure Cost Management to reduce costs and work more efficiently.

The solution is very sensitive. Every component must be configured because it affects the project cost.

We're using the latest version.

I like the granularity of the tools.

I would like to see some features included for costing and more information about the components of deployment. Sometimes, it's very difficult to match the component with the solution because the descriptions are not very clear.

The solution is stable.

Technical support is good. I would rate it five out of five.

Initial setup is very easy.

For deployment and maintenance, we need one engineer for five customers.

I would rate this solution eight out of 10. 

When deploying the solution, the first thing the engineer must do is configure text to every component. If the engineer forgets to configure the text, it's a future problem for customers.