We performed a comparison between AWS Cost Management [EOL] and IBM Turbonomic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Microsoft, VMware and others in Cloud Cost Management."The budgeting tool of AWS Cost Management is the most valuable feature."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It's not complex at all."
"AWS Cost Management is good for providing in-depth information in one place."
"With the cost management tool, clients can optimize fine tuning their consumption."
"The stability and scalability are good."
"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."
"I like the recommendation we get from AWS Cost Management to use a particular image or VM type."
"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."
"With Turbonomic, we were able to reduce our ESX cluster size and save money on our maintenance and license renewals. It saved us around $75,000 per year but it's a one-time reduction in VMware licensing. We don't renew the support. The ongoing savings is probably $50,000 to $75,000 a year, but there was a one-time of $200,000 plus."
"In our organization, optimizing application performance is a continuous process that is beyond human scale. We would not be able to do the number of actions that Turbonomic takes on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. It is humanly impossible with the little micro adjustments that it can make. That is a huge differentiator. If you just figure each action could take anywhere very conservatively from five to 10 minutes to act upon, then you multiply that out by thousands of actions every month, it is easily something where you could say, "I am saving a couple of FTEs.""
"On-premises, one advantage I find particularly appealing is the ability to create policies for automatic CPU and memory scaling based on demand."
"The most valuable features are the cluster utilization reports and the resource capacity planning. We can simulate how much capacity we can add to the current resources. The individual DM reports and VM-facing recommendations report are also helpful."
"I like the analytics that help us optimize compatibility. Whereas Azure Advisor tells us what we have to do, Turbonomic has automation which actually does those things. That means we don't have to be present to get them done and simplifies our IT engineers' jobs."
"Using this product helps us to reduce performance risk because it shows us where resources are needed but not yet allocated."
"The ability to monitor and automate both the right-sizing of VMs as well as to automate the vMotion of VMs across ESXi hosts."
"I would like to see the forecasting models improved with AWS Cost Management."
"AWS could improve the compatibility with other products."
"There could be an option to build custom dashboards for the platform."
"The solution needs to improve the communication mechanism available to the stakeholders."
"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."
"I would like to see AWS Cost Management be more precise in their calculations."
"Data transfer between S3 buckets within AWS incurs costs, especially when moving data from one bucket to another or downloading data."
"Recovering resources when they're not needed is not as optimized as it could be."
"I like the detail I get in the old user interface and will miss some of that in the new interface when we perform our planned upgrade soon."
"The issue for us with the automation is we are considering starting to do the hot adds, but there are some problems with Windows Server 2019 and hot adds. It is a little buggy. So, if we turn that on with a cluster that has a lot of Windows 2019 Servers, then we would see a blue screen along with a lot of applications as well. Depending on what you are adding, cores or memory, it doesn't necessarily even take advantage of that at that moment. A reboot may be required, and we can't do that until later. So, that decreases the benefit of the real-time. For us, there is a lot of risk with real-time."
"It would be nice for them to have a way to do something with physical machines, but I know that is not their strength Thankfully, the majority of our environment is virtual, but it would be nice to see this type of technology across some other platforms. It would be nice to have capacity planning across physical machines."
"There are a few things that we did notice. It does kind of seem to run away from itself a little bit. It does seem to have a mind of its own sometimes. It goes out there and just kind of goes crazy. There needs to be something that kind of throttles things back a little bit. I have personally seen where we've been working on things, then pulled servers out of the VMware cluster and found that Turbonomic was still trying to ship resources to and from that node. So, there has to be some kind of throttling or ability for it to not be so buggy in that area. Because we've pulled nodes out of a cluster into maintenance mode, then brought it back up, and it tried to put workloads on that outside of a cluster. There may be something that is available for this, but it seems very kludgy to me."
"I would like Turbonomic to add more services, especially in the cloud area. I have already told them this. They can add Azure NetApp Files. They can add Azure Blob storage. They have already added Azure App service, but they can do more."
"I do not like Turbonomic's new licensing model. The previous model was pretty straightforward, whereas the new model incorporates what most of the vendors are doing now with cores and utilization. Our pricing under the new model will go up quite a bit. Before, it was pretty straightforward, easy to understand, and reasonable."
"We're still evaluating the solution, so I don't know enough about what I don't know. They've done a lot over the years. I used Turbonomics six or seven years ago before IBM bought them. They've matured a lot since then."
AWS Cost Management [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Cloud Cost Management with 10 reviews while IBM Turbonomic is ranked 1st in Cloud Cost Management with 204 reviews. AWS Cost Management [EOL] is rated 8.2, while IBM Turbonomic is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AWS Cost Management [EOL] writes "Easy to use and provides in-depth information in one place". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Turbonomic writes "The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them ". AWS Cost Management [EOL] is most compared with VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth, Cloudability, Google Cloud Billing, Nutanix Cloud Manager (NCM) and Azure Cost Management, whereas IBM Turbonomic is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, Azure Cost Management, Cisco Intersight, VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth and VMware vSphere.
See our list of best Cloud Cost Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Cost Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
