We performed a comparison between Azure Cost Management and CloudCheckr based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Cost Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable aspect of Azure Cost Management for me is the cost-saving recommendations based on our usage patterns."
"The tool is very stable."
"The initial setup process is easy."
"We use the solution as a cost management tool to control the budget. It is easy to mange costs with the product."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"Good control features and user interface."
"It encompasses a multitude of specialized services, each with its associated costs and considerations."
"It has predictive analysis. It can forecast based on the costs associated with the particular architecture and how often they use it, estimating how much they'll spend."
"The recommendation section is pretty helpful."
"The solution is mostly stable."
"It's one of the leading players for cloud optimization. It's hard to find anything better."
"The most valuable feature of CloudCheckr CMx High Security is granular reporting. Additionally, the user interface is easy to use."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It will automatically suggest areas for optimization."
"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 solution is scalable for our purposes."
"There are significant issues with Power BI integration at the moment, particularly with built-in applications for course management. Multiple features don't allow for efficient report generation. This is one primary concern. The second issue relates to reporting, even when using Power BI templates for course management. There are problems with data import that require manual entry. So, these are the two main challenges I'm currently facing. Another matter to consider is the removal of the markup option for partners. I'm not sure if it will be added back, but it used to allow marking up Azure usage for enterprise customers. I'm uncertain if there's an alternative way to achieve the same function. Partners need to mark up services when selling to customers, and it's currently unavailable for some products or services."
"We lack a resource and ID login."
"The forecasting model can improve Azure Cost Management."
"Azure Cost Management should be made cheaper."
"The affordability of licenses and subscription fees is a critical consideration, as not all companies can easily manage the cost of expensive licenses."
"The product's licensing cost could be improved."
"The tool's pricing should be made cheaper."
"We have encountered delays in support."
"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."
"The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."
"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."
"Self-healing could be a bit smoother and a bit cleaner, easier to access and more functional. That would help."
"The performance of the tool really needs to be improved."
"The solution needs to work better with larger capacities of data."
"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 solution must improve its user interface."
Azure Cost Management is ranked 2nd in Cloud Cost Management with 41 reviews while CloudCheckr is ranked 7th in Cloud Cost Management with 8 reviews. Azure Cost Management is rated 8.0, while CloudCheckr is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Azure Cost Management writes "A good, but limited cost information solution with strong analytics but requiring more flexibility in its reporting functionality". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CloudCheckr writes "Beneficial granular reporting, highly stable, and excellent support". Azure Cost Management is most compared with IBM Turbonomic, VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth, AWS Savings Plans, Cloudability and Amazon CloudWatch, whereas CloudCheckr is most compared with AWS Trusted Advisor, Apptio One, VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and Cloudability. See our Azure Cost Management vs. CloudCheckr report.
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.