Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS Cost Management [EOL] vs CloudCheckr 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 Management [EOL]
Average Rating
8.2
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
CloudCheckr
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Management (29th), Cloud Cost Management (10th), Managed Cloud Services (3rd)
 

Featured Reviews

RANJAN KUMAR - PeerSpot reviewer
Helps to set cost thresholds and receive alerts if the actual cost exceeds them
We regularly check the status of services to identify any unnecessary or unexpected costs. We utilize the billing dashboard in AWS to monitor daily costs and assess any significant increases. For instance, if our daily AWS expenses usually amount to $1,000 for running a hundred instances, and suddenly it spikes to $1,500, we investigate the reasons behind the increase. We scrutinize detailed reports, identify the areas and services contributing to the rise, and inform our manager. The dashboard overview in AWS Cost Explorer provides a high-level summary of our expenses, covering databases. This includes total costs, daily costs, and a breakdown by services. AWS Cost Explorer offers visualization tools like line charts, bar charts, and pie charts. These visualizations assist us in quickly understanding expenditures, enabling us to pinpoint areas that might need attention. The tool allows the creation of custom reports by selecting and configuring filtering and grouping options. Custom reports include a data range selector, making it easy to analyze expenses for specific periods such as daily, monthly, or custom durations. The budget feature is client-dependent. Before creating any services, we engage with our client to understand their requirements, such as the number of instances, CPU, and memory needed. Subsequently, we create a budgeting tool in servers based on these specifications. Our team configures custom notifications to alert us when actual costs or usage exceed predefined thresholds. These alerts can be sent via email or integrated with Simple Notification Service. I rate the overall product a ten out of ten.
Peter Ramnath - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides recommendations regarding how cost and consumption can be adjusted, but the reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited
We are not happy with the product’s reporting capabilities. We are planning to change the solution. The security compliance feature doesn’t give much data because CloudCheckr has done a majority of its development on AWS. The majority of our clients are on Microsoft Azure. There are a lot of features and information available for Amazon, but not for Azure. The tool wasn't meeting our expectations. The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited. There's no ability to do scheduled email reports. The report could only be sent to a single email address. The tool was not very usable. We had multiple clients and tasks to work with.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The initial setup wasn't complex at all."
"All of the reporting features are very good, as they allow us to track monthly expenses and send relevant emails."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's not complex at all."
"AWS Cost Management is good for providing in-depth information in one place."
"The budgeting tool of AWS Cost Management is the most valuable feature."
"The stability and scalability are good."
"With the cost management tool, clients can optimize fine tuning their consumption."
"I like the recommendation we get from AWS Cost Management to use a particular image or VM type."
"The best feature I like about CloudCheckr CMx High Security is its simplicity. I love that it's not rocket science to use the solution. Even if you're not familiar with the cloud, you can easily figure out how to use CloudCheckr CMx High Security. You can use AWS, you can use Azure, and you can use GCP with the solution because the integration is quite simple. You can also use multi-cloud with it, and you could see the billing part. You'll have complete visibility into your cost which I love about the solution. I also love that data on any security issues and vulnerabilities are available on the go with CloudCheckr CMx High Security. You don't need to do anything different. Just run the scan and you'll have all these open findings in the tool, in terms of the priority level, so if it's critical, it will tell you, "It's critical," and you need to fix it right away."
"The recommendation section is pretty helpful."
"The most valuable feature of CloudCheckr CMx High Security is granular reporting. Additionally, the user interface is easy to use."
"It will automatically suggest areas for optimization."
"It's one of the leading players for cloud optimization. It's hard to find anything better."
"The solution is mostly stable."
"The solution is scalable for our purposes."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
 

Cons

"This program is not very scalable."
"We need finer-grained control over the roles and policies for users, specifying their permissions as to what they can look at."
"AWS could improve the compatibility with other products."
"There could be an option to build custom dashboards for the platform."
"AWS Cost Management has fewer features compared to Azure Cost Management."
"I would like to see the forecasting models improved with AWS Cost Management."
"The solution needs to have its own dashboard for seeing details on it. It should be customizable as well so I have the ability to pull up the information I need to see and have it in one place for my reference. I should just be able to click and see everything I need in one step."
"I would like to see AWS Cost Management be more precise in their calculations."
"The solution needs to work better with larger capacities of data."
"Self-healing could be a bit smoother and a bit cleaner, easier to access and more functional. That would help."
"The solution must improve its user interface."
"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."
"What needs to be improved in CloudCheckr CMx High Security is integration. All the clouds are going quite fast, for example, all the cloud providers: Microsoft, Google, etc. CloudCheckr CMx High Security is good with AWS, no doubt about it, but with Azure and Google Cloud, I find that the solution is slow in that direction. If the vendor planned for CloudCheckr CMx High Security to be automated just for AWS, then it does make sense. If not, if the vendor is also targeting good integration with Google and Microsoft, then CloudCheckr CMx High Security integration needs improvement, in particular, it has to be faster. At the moment, its integration with Azure is not as good as its integration with AWS. With GCP, integration is nowhere."
"The performance of the tool really needs to be improved."
"CloudCheckr CMx High Security is complex. There are a lot of menus, and if you do not know what you are looking for you can get lost. However, the interface is self-explanatory. It's easy to understand where to go to get what you want."
"The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We get AWS Cost Management for free because we use AWS services."
"The product is affordable."
"We have signed a long-term contract with AWS. There are different service levels that will determine the level of support you have."
"AWS Cost Management is free to use."
"The tool's pricing depends on our services."
"The cost is on par with other providers."
"The solution is reasonably priced."
"A license is needed to use CloudCheckr CMx High Security, but because we are a managed service provider, the price of the license would vary. It depends on the type of cloud users we have, for example, it would be some type of percentage or monthly billing, etc."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
19%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about AWS Cost Management?
The tool's cost management feature provides a comprehensive view of AWS costs, allowing us to plan and make cost-effective decisions. With AWS Cost Explorer, we can perform cost planning, generate ...
What needs improvement with AWS Cost Management?
Data transfer between S3 buckets within AWS incurs costs, especially when moving data from one bucket to another or downloading data.
What do you like most about CloudCheckr ?
The recommendation section is pretty helpful.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudCheckr ?
The price depends on the actual Azure consumption and what we feed into it. The cost is on par with other providers.
What needs improvement with CloudCheckr ?
We are not happy with the product’s reporting capabilities. We are planning to change the solution. The security compliance feature doesn’t give much data because CloudCheckr has done a majority of...
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Also Known As

Amazon Cost Management
CloudCheckr CMx High Security, CloudCheckr CMP
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Hess, Expedia, Kelloggs, Philips, HyperTrack
Accenture, Logitech, Ingram, Cloudar, Infor, DXC, Cornell University, DLT, Lumen, Lightstream, Choice Hotels, B-Tech, SmileShark, PTP, Explicity, JCH Technology, Siemens Mobility
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Nutanix, Microsoft and others in Cloud Cost Management. Updated: May 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.