We performed a comparison between Azure Cost Management and IBM Turbonomic 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.
"Our customers use it and like it."
"The most valuable feature is that our customers can see their consumption in real time. Even though we have a couple of analytics provided by our company, those are not in real time."
"Azure Cost Management helps us analyze the data on service usage and decide how to go ahead with the recommendations. You can automate it by writing custom automation scripts."
"The cost analysis and exportability are the most valuable features of the solution."
"What I like the most about Azure Cost Management is that it's similar to a native service, and it has very well-defined product features, particularly if a customer is moving to Azure, then it gives proper insight in terms of compatibility and what benefits a customer can get from the solution."
"I like the granularity of the tools."
"It is easy to log in, and everything is graphical so that you can build on the published resources."
"The best thing about Azure Cost Management is the cost analysis functionality because it provides regular alerts."
"We can manage multiple environments using a single pane of glass, which is something that I really like."
"Using this product helps us to reduce performance risk because it shows us where resources are needed but not yet allocated."
"We've saved hundreds of hours. Most of the time those hours would have to be after hours as well, which are more valuable to me as that's my personal time."
"The solution has a good optimization feature."
"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."
"Turbonomic can show us if we're not using some of our storage volumes efficiently in AWS. For example, if we've over-provisioned one of our virtual machines to have dedicated IOPs that it doesn't need, Turbonomic will detect that and tell us."
"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.'"
"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."
"It can be difficult to determine the cost associated with certain resources as it relies on a tagging progress. This means we need to drill down billing reports to highlight and fix missing tags."
"We lack a resource and ID login."
"The built-in reports from Azure Cost Management aren't intelligent. It will estimate where you could potentially save money, but it's not like Turbonomic, which has a smart engine. It is dynamically managing and automating the transition to the right cost model. It's a dynamic cost management module."
"We would like to see more flexibility added to this solution, such as being able to compare reservations, or compare costs across multiple financial years and report on the reasons for deviation in spend."
"I would like to have added to Azure Cost Management, drill down features from within the cost analysis reporting."
"I would like to see some features included for costing and more information about the components of deployment. Sometimes, it's very difficult to match the component with the solution because the descriptions are not very clear."
"I haven't detected anything that needs improvement, but any solution could be improved."
"Cost Management could always provide more details. The more information, the better. They just need to build on what they have now."
"There is an opportunity for improvement with some of Turbonomic's permissions internally for role-based access control. We would like the ability to come up with some customized permissions or scope permissions a bit differently than the product provides."
"The deployment process is a little tricky. It wasn't hard for me because I have pretty in-depth knowledge of Kubernetes, and their software runs on Kubernetes. To deploy it or upgrade it, you have to be able to follow steps and use the Kubernetes command line, or you'll need someone to come in and do it for you."
"Additional interfaces would be helpful."
"The GUI and policy creation have room for improvement. There should be a better view of some of the numbers that are provided and easier to access. And policy creation should have it easier to identify groups."
"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."
"Some features are only available via changes to the deployment YAML, and it would be better to have them in the UI."
"The reporting needs to be improved. It's important for us to know and be able to look back on what happened and why certain decisions were made, and we want to use a custom report for this."
"They have a long road map when we ask for certain things that will make the product better. It takes time, but that's understandable because there are other things that are higher on the priority list."
Azure Cost Management is ranked 4th in Cloud Cost Management with 9 reviews while IBM Turbonomic is ranked 1st in Cloud Cost Management with 14 reviews. Azure Cost Management is rated 8.2, while IBM Turbonomic is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Azure Cost Management writes "It helps us analyze the data on service usage and optimize spending, but it could use more automation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Turbonomic writes "Provides recommendations whether workloads should be scaled up or down". Azure Cost Management is most compared with AWS Savings Plans, CloudHealth, Datadog, Cloudability and Amazon CloudWatch, whereas IBM Turbonomic is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, CloudHealth, Cisco Intersight, Densify and VMware vSphere. See our Azure Cost Management vs. IBM Turbonomic 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.
