Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 7, 2025

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 IT Operations Analytics
29th
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
34th
Average Rating
10.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Infrastructure Capacity Planning (2nd)
IBM Turbonomic
Ranking in IT Operations Analytics
11th
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
1st
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (5th), Cloud Management (4th), Virtualization Management Tools (5th), IT Financial Management (1st), Cloud Analytics (1st), AIOps (15th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the IT Operations Analytics category, the mindshare of BMC Helix Continuous Optimization is 1.2%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 1.9%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
IT Operations Analytics Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic1.9%
BMC Helix Continuous Optimization1.2%
Other96.9%
IT Operations Analytics
 

Featured Reviews

Appperf677 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
reviewer1446966 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Systems Engineer at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them
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. When I change the resolution to 1080, I only see half of what I would on my big 4K monitor. It would be annoying to have to scroll to see the flow chart. They have a flow chart that goes top to bottom like a tree. On a lower resolution, it might be nice if that scrolls horizontally because it's long, narrow, and tall. It's only three icons wide, but it's 15 icons tall. I think it would be helpful to have the ability to change that for a smaller screen and customize the widget.

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."
"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.'"
"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."
"I like the analytics that help us optimize compatibility. Whereas Azure Advisor tells us what we have to do, Turbonomic has automation which actually does those things. That means we don't have to be present to get them done and simplifies our IT engineers' jobs."
"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 primary features we have focused on are reporting and optimization."
"It is a good holistic platform that is easy to use. It works pretty well."
"Using this product helps us to reduce performance risk because it shows us where resources are needed but not yet allocated."
"It became obvious to us that there was a lot more being offered in the product that we could leverage to ensure our VMware environment was running efficiently."
"The ability to monitor and automate both the right-sizing of VMs as well as to automate the vMotion of VMs across ESXi hosts."
"The notifications saying, "This is a corrective action," even though some of them can be automated, are always welcome to see. They summarize your entire infrastructure and how you can better utilize it. That is the biggest feature."
 

Cons

"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."
"The memory management of Java application servers should be implemented to be able to size GC and footprint."
"If they would educate their customers to understand the latest updates, that would help customers... Also, there are a lot of features that are not available in Turbonomic. For example, PaaS component optimization and automation are still in the development phase."
"Turbonomic doesn't do storage placement how I would prefer. We use multiple shared storage volumes on VMware, so I don't have one big disk. I have lots of disks that I can place VMs on, and that consumes IOPS from the disk subsystem. We were getting recommendations to provision a new volume."
"It sometimes does get false positives. Sometimes, it'll move something when it really wasn't a performance metric. I've seen it do that, but it's pretty much an automated tool for performance. We've only got about 500 virtual machines, so lots of times, I'm able to manage it physically, but it's definitely a nice tool for a larger enterprise that might be managing 2,000 or 3,000 virtual machines."
"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."
"The old interface was not the clearest UI in some areas, and could be quite intimidating when first using the tool."
"Some features are only available via changes to the deployment YAML, and it would be better to have them in the UI."
"Remove the need for special in-house knowledge and development."
"It can be more agnostic in terms of the solutions that it provides. It can include some other cost-saving methods for the public cloud and SaaS applications as well."
 

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."
"In the last year, Turbonomic has reduced our cloud costs by $94,000."
"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."
"You should understand the cost of your physical servers and how much time and money you are spending year over year on expanding your virtual farm."
"Contact the Turbonomic sales team, explain your needs and what you're looking to monitor. They will get a pre-sales SE on the phone and together work up a very accurate quote."
"It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive."
"We felt the pricing was very fair for the product. It is in no way prohibitive for larger deployments, unlike other similar product on the market."
"What I can advise is to trial the product, taking advantage of the Turbonomic pre-sales implemention support and kickstart training."
"If you're a super-small business, it may be a little bit pricey for you... But in large, enterprise companies where money is, maybe, less of an issue, Turbonomic is not that expensive. I can't imagine why any big company would not buy it, for what it does."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which IT Operations Analytics solutions are best for your needs.
883,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
24%
Energy/Utilities Company
13%
Healthcare Company
8%
Transportation Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise57
Large Enterprise147
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Turbonomic?
It offers different scenarios. It provides more capabilities than many other tools available. Typically, its price is set as a percentage of the consumption of some of our customers' services. The ...
What needs improvement with Turbonomic?
The implementation could be enhanced.
What is your primary use case for Turbonomic?
We use IBM Turbonomic to automate our cloud operations, including monitoring, consolidating dashboards, and reporting. This helps us get a consolidated view of all customer spending into a single d...
 

Also Known As

BMC Capacity Optimization, TrueSight Capacity Optimization, BMC Helix Optimize, BMC Helix Continuous Optimization
Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Dilliard's
IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC Helix Continuous Optimization vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: January 2026.
883,692 professionals have used our research since 2012.