BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs CoreStack comparison

BMC Helix and CoreStack are both solutions in the Cloud Cost Management category. BMC Helix is ranked #35, while CoreStack is ranked #20 with an average rating of 8.3. BMC Helix holds a 1.3% mindshare in CCM, compared to CoreStack’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of BMC Helix users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of CoreStack users who would recommend it.

BMC Helix Continuous Optimi...

Read 2 BMC Helix Continuous Optimization reviews

546 Views
300 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

CoreStack

Read 4 CoreStack reviews

269 Views
269 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

BMC Helix Continuous Optimi...

CoreStack

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 7, 2025

BMC Helix Continuous Optimization and CoreStack are competing in IT operations management. CoreStack holds an edge with innovative features, while BMC Helix is preferred for pricing and support.

Features: BMC Helix Continuous Optimization offers robust predictive analytics, proactive capacity management, and a cost-effective resource management model. CoreStack provides comprehensive multicloud governance, proactive cost management, and extensive compliance features essential for managing complex cloud environments.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: BMC Helix offers straightforward deployment with extensive support, making it accessible across various IT environments. CoreStack, with a more intricate setup, provides flexible customer support tailored to specific needs. BMC's simpler process aids seamless integration, but CoreStack's adaptable support offers greater value for complex infrastructures.

Pricing and ROI: BMC Helix Continuous Optimization is cost-effective with a transparent pricing model, delivering significant ROI through efficient resource management. CoreStack, with a higher initial setup cost, justifies this with a focus on reducing cloud expenses and ensuring compliance, providing value for those requiring extensive cloud management capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs. CoreStack Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs. CoreStack

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 879,853 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

BMC Helix Continuous Optimi...

Ranking in Cloud Cost Management

35th

Average Rating

10.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Infrastructure Capacity Planning (1st), IT Operations Analytics (27th)

CoreStack

Ranking in Cloud Cost Management

20th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.1

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of BMC Helix Continuous Optimization is 1.3%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CoreStack is 1.1%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Cloud Cost Management Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
CoreStack	1.1%
BMC Helix Continuous Optimization	1.3%
Other	97.6%

Cloud Cost Management

Featured Reviews

Appperf677

Application Performance Mnagement Specialist at a insurance company with 5,001-10,000 employees

Enables us to right-size systems to free up resources, and identify performance problems down to the process level

Since I already have a sneak peek into the next releases, I'm very happy about what's going to be included. I would like to see continued support for the legacy parts of the tool, the old, seasoned parts that are very valuable to me. That is a message I continue to give to BMC: All the new stuff's great, but don't take away this really important stuff. That's my biggest fear, that I might lose some of my old functionality that is still extremely valuable. I want to make sure we don't lose any functionality, and that they just still keep delivering on what they're doing. I don't have anything more to ask than what they're offering.

Read full review

reviewer2783919

Associate Vice President at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees

Cost reports have driven accurate AWS workload optimization and continue to guide savings

I can suggest improvements for CoreStack, especially regarding reporting periods. I noticed that some of the cost optimization reports generated potential savings while considering systems that have only maximum utilization of 1% or 2%. The recommendations made in CoreStack to delete a machine have the potential to generate major cost savings, but such machines should not be listed for deletion if they have maximum CPU utilization of 1%. I have concerns about needed improvements primarily regarding AWS. If a customer is running ten virtual machines and one machine has a maximum of 1% utilization, it is considered as an idle instance in the report, which completely ignores that particular machine. This should not be the approach.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The most interesting feature is certainly the simulation of the load using different servers or different KPI parameters of the business."

"Workload characterization is super important because it lets us figure things out. Many people know, for example, that with Microsoft Word, Word.exe is the executable. Everybody knows their executable, but they don't always know what it does. It also launches other things. This tool has the ability and insight to track those things, and to know: "Oh, you wanted this executable, but this one started this, so you must want this, too." And it tells you what it had to add, what it was using or was spawning."

"We ingest a ton of business data. We are an insurance company and we have business data, like how many quotes are done an hour, and how many policies are sold per hour. The correlation engine in the new TrueSight Capacity Optimization components are wonderful. We can do correlation analysis over months of data, and then we run models to tell our business: 'If you do 1,000 more quotes an hour, we're going to have to upgrade, and we're going to need this much more hardware.'"

"Currently, I think CoreStack is the best FinOps tool available in the market, which is why we are using it."

"My advice for others looking into using CoreStack is that anyone who is looking to optimize their workload cost for public cloud services should start using CoreStack because of the reports and granularity it produces to optimize cost, which will benefit them."

"Mainly through improved cost visibility and optimization with CoreStack, we have achieved a good ROI, and for some customers we were able to achieve more than forty percent cost savings by identifying unused and idle resources in their accounts, leading to significant cost savings after we completed the cleanup of those resources."

"CoreStack has positively impacted my organization by saving hours of time for reporting—for example, the governance report which my employees used to take at least four hours for one customer, and since I'm sending out 20 reports every month, that equates to 80 hours, thus saving me two man-weeks every month and approximately $8,000 in pure savings if I estimate $100 an hour for my architect."

Cons

"The memory management of Java application servers should be implemented to be able to size GC and footprint."

"Some of the data management is painful. Some of the new features haven't been implemented in quite the way I would like to get to levels of detail. For example, Visualizer parser doesn't take everything it should out of the Visualizer files. We've had to put in a work-around, but the work-around is not as accurate as what's in the file."

"I believe CoreStack already has very good features in the governance and security parts, but stability can definitely be improved."

"I noticed that some of the cost optimization reports generated potential savings while considering systems that have only maximum utilization of 1% or 2%. The recommendations made in CoreStack to delete a machine have the potential to generate major cost savings, but such machines should not be listed for deletion if they have maximum CPU utilization of 1%."

"I give it an eight because, as I mentioned, a few things from the billing operations need to be added, and we need more security features, particularly since the market is increasingly demanding better security tools for cloud management platforms, including cloud security posture assessments."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Right now, the licensing structure is by server. Everybody is licensed somewhat differently, depending on how big they are, how many licenses they have."

Information not available

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

23%

Energy/Utilities Company

12%

Computer Software Company

Healthcare Company

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CoreStack?

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is pretty good because we received private pricing, which I cannot disclose. The setup was included as a one-time expense, and licensing is str...

See all answers

What needs improvement with CoreStack?

CoreStack can improve by adding a segregation of reserved instances that are shared across child accounts or managed accounts from the parent account, ensuring a cost allocation for all reserved in...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for CoreStack?

My main use case for CoreStack is for cost optimization and billing operations, and I'm using it a bit for SecOps and CloudOps, but majorly for FinOps and BillOps. A specific example of how I use C...

See all answers

Comparisons

IBM Turbonomic vs BMC Helix Continuous Optimization

Compared 31% of the time

OpenText Cloud Optimizer vs BMC Helix Continuous Optimization

Compared 18% of the time

Precisely Capacity Management vs BMC Helix Continuous Optimization

Compared 18% of the time

ITRS Capacity Planner vs BMC Helix Continuous Optimization

Compared 18% of the time

DX Performance Management vs BMC Helix Continuous Optimization

Compared 14% of the time

More BMC Helix Continuous Optimization Competitors

Spot vs CoreStack

Compared 38% of the time

CloudCheckr vs CoreStack

Compared 33% of the time

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth vs CoreStack

Compared 30% of the time

More CoreStack Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs. OpenText Cloud Optimizer

December 2025

BMC Helix Continuous Optimization report

Download BMC Helix Continuous Optimization product report

Buyer's Guide

CoreStack

January 2026

Download CoreStack product report

Also Known As

BMC Capacity Optimization, TrueSight Capacity Optimization, BMC Helix Optimize, BMC Helix Continuous Optimization

No data available

Overview

BMC Helix Continuous Optimization is a comprehensive performance and capacity management solution designed to help enterprises optimize IT resources, enhancing operational efficiency while managing costs effectively.

It provides predictive analytics and modeling capabilities, allowing businesses to meet evolving demands seamlessly. By proactively identifying resource constraints and predicting future trends, BMC Helix Continuous Optimization assists organizations in aligning IT resources with business objectives. This strategic approach ensures optimized performance, resource allocation, and cost management with enhanced insights.

What are the key features of BMC Helix Continuous Optimization?

Predictive Analytics: Utilizes advanced algorithms to forecast future resource requirements.
Capacity Planning: Facilitates strategic planning to manage capacity effectively.
Anomaly Detection: Identifies unusual patterns that could impact performance.
Customizable Dashboards: Provides insights with tailored views for better decision-making.

What benefits can be expected from BMC Helix Continuous Optimization?

Cost Reduction: Optimizes resource usage to lower operational costs.
Increased Efficiency: Enhances productivity by aligning resources with demand.
Improved Forecasting: Accurate predictions help with strategic planning.
Risk Mitigation: Early detection of performance issues reduces downtime.

BMC Helix Continuous Optimization is leveraged by industries like financial services, healthcare, and telecommunications to ensure resource efficiency. These sectors benefit from predictive modeling and capacity planning capabilities, enabling them to adapt to fast-changing conditions while maintaining optimal performance.

BMC Helix

CoreStack® Enterprise Enables You to be agile and eliminate waste while proactively mitigating risks by making your cloud governance intelligent and autonomous. It applies Cloud-as-Code™ approach to govern the four critical components of your cloud

CoreStack

Sample Customers

Dilliard's

CAMS

Buyer's Guide

BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs. CoreStack

December 2025

Free Report: BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs. CoreStack

Find out what your peers are saying about BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs. CoreStack and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs. CoreStack 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.