Azure Cost Management vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

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.
To learn more, read our detailed Azure Cost Management vs. IBM Turbonomic Report (Updated: November 2022).
657,849 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"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.""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.""Our customers use it and like it.""I like the granularity of the tools.""The best thing about Azure Cost Management is the cost analysis functionality because it provides regular alerts.""It is easy to log in, and everything is graphical so that you can build on the published resources."

More Azure Cost Management Pros →

"It also brings up a list of machines and if something is under-provisioned and needs more compute power it will tell you, 'This server needs more compute power, and we suggest you raise it up to this level.' It will even automatically do it for you. In Azure, you don't have to actually go into the cloud provider to resize. You can just say, 'Apply these resizes,' and Turbonomic uses some back-end APIs to make the changes for you.""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.""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.'""I like Turbonomic's built-in reporting. It provides a ton of information out of the box, so I don't have to build panels for the monthly summaries and other reports I need to present to management. We get better performance and bottleneck reporting from this than we do from our older EMC software.""Using this product helps us to reduce performance risk because it shows us where resources are needed but not yet allocated.""We like that Turbonomic shows application metrics and estimates the impact of taking a suggested action. It provides us a map of resource utilization as part of its recommendation. We evaluate and compare that to what we think would be appropriate from a human perspective to that what Turbonomic is doing, then take the best action going forward.""We have a system where our developers automate machine builds, and that is constantly running out of resources. Turbonomic helps us with that, so I don't have to keep buying hardware. The developers always say, "They don't have enough. They don't have enough. They don't have enough," when they just configured it improperly. Therefore, Turbonomic helps us identify configuration issues on their side so it doesn't cost me money on the other end to buy resources that I don't really need.""The automated memory balancing, where it looks at whether it's being used in the most efficient way and adds or takes away memory, is the best part. If it didn't do that, it would be something that I would have to do. We have too many machines for one person to do that. The automation helps me in that it is done in a really efficient way and a balanced way because of the policies. It really helps."

More IBM Turbonomic Pros →

Cons
"We lack a resource and ID login.""I haven't detected anything that needs improvement, but any solution could be improved.""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.""What would make Azure Cost Management better is a more flexible GUI that would allow users to provide more input. Another area for improvement in the solution is its reporting. The report it provides should be easy to understand.""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.""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.""Cost Management could always provide more details. The more information, the better. They just need to build on what they have now."

More Azure Cost Management Cons →

"The planning and costing areas could be a little bit more detailed. When you have more than 2,000 machines, the reports don't work properly. They need to fix it so that the reports work when you use that many virtual machines.""Additional interfaces would be helpful.""I would love to see Turbonomic analyze backup data. We have had people in the past put servers into daily full backups with seven-year retention and where the disk size is two terabytes. So, every single day, there is a two terabyte snapshot put into a Blob somewhere. I would love to see Turbonomic say, "Here are all your backups along with the age of them," to help us manage the savings by not having us spend so much on the storage in Azure. That would be huge.""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.""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.""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.""Some features are only available via changes to the deployment YAML, and it would be better to have them in the UI.""There is room for improvement [with] upgrades. We have deployed the newer version, version 8 of Turbonomic. The problem is that there is no way to upgrade between major Turbonomic versions. You can upgrade minor versions without a problem, but when you go from version 6 to version 7, or version 7 to version 8, you basically have to deploy it new and let it start gathering data again. That is a problem because all of the data, all of the savings calculations that had been done on the old version, are gone. There's no way to keep track of your lifetime savings across versions."

More IBM Turbonomic Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The solution is free. It's part of having an Azure subscription."
  • More Azure Cost Management Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive."
  • "We see ROI in extended support agreements (ESA) for old software. Migration activities seem to be where Turbonomic has really benefited us the most. It's one click and done. We have new machines ready to go with Turbonomic, which are properly sized instead of somebody sitting there with a spreadsheet and guessing. So, my return on investment would certainly be on currency, from a software and hardware perspective."
  • "When we have expanded our licensing, it has always been easy to make an ROI-based decision. So, it's reasonably priced. We would like to have it cheaper, but we get more benefit from it than we pay for it. At the end of the day, that's all you can hope for."
  • "I know there have been some issues with the billing, when the numbers were first proposed, as to how much we would save. There was a huge miscommunication on our part. Turbonomic was led to believe that we could optimize our AWS footprint, because we didn't know we couldn't. So, we were promised savings of $750,000. Then, when we came to implement Turbonomic, the developers in AWS said, "Absolutely not. You're not putting that in our environment. We can't scale down anything because they coded it." Our AWS environment is a legacy environment. It has all these old applications, where all the developers who have made it are no longer with the company. Those applications generate a ton of money for us. So, if one breaks, we are really in trouble and they didn't want to have to deal with an environment that was changing and couldn't be supported. That number went from $750,000 to about $450,000. However, that wasn't Turbonomic's fault."
  • "It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive."
  • "The pricing and licensing are fair. We purchase based on benchmark pricing, which we have been able to get. There are no surprise charges nor hidden fees."
  • "The product is fairly priced right now. Given its capabilities, it is excellently priced. We think that the product will become self-funding because we will be able to maximize our resources, which will help us from a capacity perspective. That should save us money in the long run."
  • "It's worth the time and money investment if you can afford it."
  • More IBM Turbonomic Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
    657,849 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:We don't actually use the Azure Cost Management features. We have our own capabilities. We put our own technology on top of Azure as Azure doesn't deliver a really good cost optimization, so our… more »
    Top Answer:Based on the transitional cost we charge, it's not expensive, but could be better.
    Top Answer:The policy-based remediation is probably the biggest area where Azure is lacking and that's why we sell a lot of our technology to our customers. We don't really use the Azure tools that much. We look… more »
    Top Answer:I don't know the current prices, but I like how the licensing is based on the number of instances instead of sockets, clusters, or cores. We have some VMs that are so heavy I can only fit four on one… more »
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Top Answer:We use Turbonomic to evaluate all of our virtualized clusters. Initially, we were only using Turbonomic for our long-term VMware stacks. Now we are monitoring VMware ESXi 7 and Nutanix AHV stacks. On… more »
    Ranking
    4th
    Views
    3,667
    Comparisons
    3,182
    Reviews
    5
    Average Words per Review
    392
    Rating
    8.2
    1st
    Views
    9,692
    Comparisons
    4,950
    Reviews
    20
    Average Words per Review
    2,036
    Rating
    8.9
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    Microsoft Azure Cost Management, Cloudyn
    Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
    Learn More
    Overview

    Azure Cost Management empowers organizations to monitor cloud spend, drive organizational accountabilities, and optimize cloud efficiency so they can accelerate future cloud investments with confidence.

    IBM Turbonomic Application Resource Management (ARM) software is used by customers to assure application performance while eliminating inefficiencies by dynamically resourcing applications across hybrid and multicloud environments. Turbonomic customers report an average 33% reduction in cloud and infrastructure waste without impacting application performance, and return-on-investment of 471% over three years.

    For further information, please visit www.ibm.com/cloud/turbonomic

    Ready to take a closer look? Request a demo today.

    Offer
    Learn more about Azure Cost Management
    Learn more about IBM Turbonomic
    Sample Customers
    Quixey, Infomedia, Panaya, Wix.com, Mirabeau, Mi9, GetTaxi, Outsmart Studios, Bownty, BlazeMeter: The Load Testing Cloud, Irdeto, Effective Measure, Totango, Nextdoor, BranchOut, The BioTeam, Evolven, Netotiate, ClickSoftware
    J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmerica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company50%
    Government13%
    Real Estate/Law Firm13%
    Pharma/Biotech Company13%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company24%
    Comms Service Provider10%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Retailer6%
    REVIEWERS
    Healthcare Company13%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Manufacturing Company12%
    Insurance Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company26%
    Comms Service Provider11%
    Financial Services Firm8%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business21%
    Midsize Enterprise5%
    Large Enterprise74%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business23%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise62%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business17%
    Midsize Enterprise24%
    Large Enterprise59%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business20%
    Midsize Enterprise13%
    Large Enterprise67%
    Buyer's Guide
    Azure Cost Management vs. IBM Turbonomic
    November 2022
    Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Cost Management vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: November 2022.
    657,849 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Azure Cost Management is ranked 4th in Cloud Cost Management with 7 reviews while IBM Turbonomic is ranked 1st in Cloud Cost Management with 20 reviews. Azure Cost Management is rated 8.4, while IBM Turbonomic is rated 9.0. 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 "Helps us optimize cloud operations, reducing our cloud costs". 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.