No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

AWS Cost and Usage Reports vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS Cost and Usage Reports
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
22nd
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
3.6
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Turbonomic
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
1st
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (5th), Cloud Management (4th), Virtualization Management Tools (5th), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (11th), Cloud Analytics (1st), AIOps (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of AWS Cost and Usage Reports is 0.7%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 5.9%, down from 14.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Cost Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic5.9%
AWS Cost and Usage Reports0.7%
Other93.4%
Cloud Cost Management
 

Featured Reviews

CM
Mgr Cloud Operations at freelancer
Enhanced cost tracking visibility simplifies financial management
Our primary use case for AWS Cost and Usage Reports was for reporting purposes. We had a FinOps team that handled the more granular details, but I was aware of the reports so I could access them and dig deeper if needed AWS provided us more visibility into our costs due to their abilities to…
reviewer1446966 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Systems Engineer at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them
The management interface seems to be designed for high-resolution screens. Somebody with a smaller-resolution screen might not like the web interface. I run a 4K monitor on it, so everything fits on the screen. With a lower resolution like 1080, you need to scroll a lot. Everything is in smaller windows. It doesn't seem to be designed for smaller screens. When I change the resolution to 1080, I only see half of what I would on my big 4K monitor. It would be annoying to have to scroll to see the flow chart. They have a flow chart that goes top to bottom like a tree. On a lower resolution, it might be nice if that scrolls horizontally because it's long, narrow, and tall. It's only three icons wide, but it's 15 icons tall. I think it would be helpful to have the ability to change that for a smaller screen and customize the widget.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"AWS provided us more visibility into our costs due to their abilities to track this information."
"AWS provided us more visibility into our costs due to their abilities to track this information, making it easier compared to our previous on-premises setup where it was more challenging to manage."
"Right-sizing and right-balancing VMs and hosts used to be an ongoing, tedious, and time consuming effort. With Turbonomic, it does that work for me so I can focus my attention on other priorities."
"The feature for optimizing VMs is the most valuable because a number of the agencies have workloads or VMs that are not really being used. Turbonomic enables us to say, 'If you combine these, or if you decide to go with a reserve instance, you will save this much.'"
"Our ROI occurred in less than 6 months by allowing us to avoid a costly server upgrade that was planned for parts of our VMware infrastructure."
"The "financial" idea works very well, and has allowed us to reduce our infrastructure footprint significantly without impacting performance."
"Within a week of running Turbonomic we were able to see clearly which guest systems needed to be resized and, especially, moved to other nodes within our clusters to obtain the optimal performance."
"Customer service and support are one of the tops in the industry."
"The recommendation of the family types is a huge help because it has saved us a lot of money. We use it primarily for that. Another thing that Turbonomic provides us with is a single platform that manages the full application stack and that's something I really like."
"With over 2500 ESX VMs, including 1500+ XenDesktop VDI desktops, hosted over two datacentres and 80+ vSphere hosts, firefighting has become something of the past."
 

Cons

"There is nothing specific that comes off the top of my head for improvements."
"I'd like to see the creation of custom dashboards become a little more streamlined."
"We would also like to see expansion made in the UCS tools that they provide, to allow viewing the entire UCS environment and not just the equipment that hosts a hypervisor."
"It sometimes does get false positives. Sometimes, it will move something when it really wasn't a performance metric."
"Initial setup was complex to get reports we wanted."
"UI is still maturing. The UI is relatively easy to use but still does not have that professional look to it."
"I did have a few issues but support quickly resolved the issue."
"We did have an issue certain build causing the database to fill up however technical support was very helpful in getting updated to a newer version to correct this issue."
"Finding help can be difficult if needed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"We felt the pricing was very fair for the product. It is in no way prohibitive for larger deployments, unlike other similar product on the market."
"We see ROI in extended support agreements (ESA) for old software. Migration activities seem to be where Turbonomic has really benefited us the most. It's one click and done. We have new machines ready to go with Turbonomic, which are properly sized instead of somebody sitting there with a spreadsheet and guessing. So, my return on investment would certainly be on currency, from a software and hardware perspective."
"It was an annual buy-in. You basically purchase it based on your host type stuff. The buy-in was about 20K, and the annual maintenance is about $3,000 a year."
"Price is a big one. VMTurbo was very competitively priced."
"It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive."
"I know there have been some issues with the billing, when the numbers were first proposed, as to how much we would save. There was a huge miscommunication on our part. Turbonomic was led to believe that we could optimize our AWS footprint, because we didn't know we couldn't. So, we were promised savings of $750,000. Then, when we came to implement Turbonomic, the developers in AWS said, "Absolutely not. You're not putting that in our environment. We can't scale down anything because they coded it." Our AWS environment is a legacy environment. It has all these old applications, where all the developers who have made it are no longer with the company. Those applications generate a ton of money for us. So, if one breaks, we are really in trouble and they didn't want to have to deal with an environment that was changing and couldn't be supported. That number went from $750,000 to about $450,000. However, that wasn't Turbonomic's fault."
"I consider the pricing to be high."
"When we have expanded our licensing, it has always been easy to make an ROI-based decision. So, it's reasonably priced. We would like to have it cheaper, but we get more benefit from it than we pay for it. At the end of the day, that's all you can hope for."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
885,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise57
Large Enterprise147
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with AWS Cost and Usage Reports?
At the moment, there is nothing specific that comes off the top of my head for improvements; it provided me the necessary information.
What is your primary use case for AWS Cost and Usage Reports?
Our primary use case for AWS Cost and Usage Reports was for reporting purposes. We had a FinOps team that handled the more granular details, but I was aware of the reports so I could access them an...
What advice do you have for others considering AWS Cost and Usage Reports?
It is a necessity to be able to track and know where your spending is going. AWS Cost and Usage Reports help in achieving this. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Turbonomic?
It offers different scenarios. It provides more capabilities than many other tools available. Typically, its price is set as a percentage of the consumption of some of our customers' services. The ...
What needs improvement with Turbonomic?
The implementation could be enhanced.
What is your primary use case for Turbonomic?
We use IBM Turbonomic to automate our cloud operations, including monitoring, consolidating dashboards, and reporting. This helps us get a consolidated view of all customer spending into a single d...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Nutanix, Apptio and others in Cloud Cost Management. Updated: March 2026.
885,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.