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.
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
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.
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.