Azure Cost Management and Harness are cloud cost optimization solutions. Harness has the upper hand with its comprehensive features and automation capabilities despite Azure's seamless integration with Microsoft's ecosystem.
Features: Azure Cost Management provides insights into cloud spending, budget alerts, and aids in tracking costs and identifying savings. Harness offers automation capabilities, cost optimization insights beyond Azure, and continuous delivery for optimized deployment cycles, providing a broader capability advantage.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Azure Cost Management benefits from a straightforward deployment within the Azure ecosystem and robust support infrastructure. Harness, while more complex to deploy due to its feature-rich set, provides excellent support and comprehensive documentation, offering personalized and technical guidance despite its complex deployment.
Pricing and ROI: Azure Cost Management is cost-effective for Azure-centric organizations, providing good ROI through effective cost tracking. Harness requires a higher initial investment, promising significant long-term ROI through cloud spending optimization and process automation, balancing its cost with potential savings and process efficiencies.
By adopting templates and various different pipelines across our own IDP platform, we have saved upwards of 30 to 40% of development time.
I believe the efficiency improvement is more than a twenty to thirty percent increase compared to Jenkins.
With Harness, the release process decreased from three or four hours to one or two hours, making deployments much quicker.
I would rate the technical support of Microsoft in general as nine out of ten.
We have not faced any customer support issues, with tickets resolved in less than a four-day SLA.
We have rarely faced issues with Harness tech support.
We have been receiving incident reports whenever an incident occurs on Harness, and they are usually quick to respond.
It is able to work on our infrastructure side, which is EKS, and we are able to handle our organization growth effectively for an enterprise use case.
Our entire organization uses it with hundreds of applications, and it supports this scale effectively.
Currently, out of twenty teams that are supposed to adopt it, five or six have adopted Harness, and we have not seen any kind of scalability issues, such as slowness in performance or build time reduction.
Harness is completely stable, and we are using it in production without facing any stability issues at all.
We have rarely faced issues with Harness tech support.
Harness is decently stable.
Customization features could be added for Azure Cost Management.
There is no way to execute nested pipelines, which means that we cannot execute child pipelines within child pipelines and child pipelines even within those child pipelines.
Harness can be improved by providing more clarity on the credits it issues for Harness Cloud, as it has a tiered pricing structure involving license and credit costs, which can get confusing.
When deploying multiple components to multiple environments, like production and BCP, failures sometimes occur.
The pricing part could be improved.
From what I understand with respect to Harness, licensing and setup costs were relatively low for an enterprise, and the pricing was more catered toward enterprises who would invest in the technology.
It is already built-in, which allows me to track costs effectively through FinOps capabilities.
Maintaining the budget as expected and setting clear expectations is crucial for the customer.
Harness uses AI to suggest errors in case of deployment failures.
Harness offers several best features that I have worked with, including an intelligent caching system for dependencies and artifact building that allows for extremely short build times without extra bash scripting.
The best features in Harness are its user-friendliness and setup configuration.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Azure Cost Management | 3.4% |
| Harness | 2.0% |
| Other | 94.6% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 11 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 6 |
| Large Enterprise | 33 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 1 |
| Large Enterprise | 9 |
Azure Cost Management provides tools for effective cost control, analysis, and expenditure tracking in cloud environments. It helps organizations optimize their cloud spending, offering insights and analytics for informed financial decision-making.
Azure Cost Management offers an integrated interface with features including real-time consumption display, cost analysis, and budgeting tools. Its predictive analytics and central visibility aid in monitoring resource costs and optimizing expenses. While companies endorse its intuitive integration and user-friendly approach, they seek improvements in automation, scalability, and connections to other cloud providers. Users value the platform for its capability to efficiently track spending, set alerts, and forecast costs, assisting in identifying and addressing cost drivers.
What are the key features of Azure Cost Management?In industries such as finance and IT, Azure Cost Management enables detailed budget control and expenditure tracking, helping organizations assess spending and optimize resource utilization. By analyzing monthly and yearly costs, they adjust budgets and develop strategies to improve financial performance.
Harness offers a comprehensive toolset for automating deployment processes and enhancing software update efficiency. It's lauded for its CI/CD capabilities, feature flagging, and real-time deployment monitoring. Key features include an intuitive UI, secret management, and robust rollback functionalities, all contributing to improved productivity and reduced errors in DevOps environments.
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.
