CloudCheckr vs IBM Kubecost comparison

"The solution is mostly stable."

"The recommendation section is pretty helpful."

"It's one of the leading players for cloud optimization. It's hard to find anything better."

"The best feature I like about CloudCheckr CMx High Security is its simplicity. I love that it's not rocket science to use the solution. Even if you're not familiar with the cloud, you can easily figure out how to use CloudCheckr CMx High Security. You can use AWS, you can use Azure, and you can use GCP with the solution because the integration is quite simple. You can also use multi-cloud with it, and you could see the billing part. You'll have complete visibility into your cost which I love about the solution. I also love that data on any security issues and vulnerabilities are available on the go with CloudCheckr CMx High Security. You don't need to do anything different. Just run the scan and you'll have all these open findings in the tool, in terms of the priority level, so if it's critical, it will tell you, "It's critical," and you need to fix it right away."

"The initial setup is straightforward."

"The solution is scalable for our purposes."

"It will automatically suggest areas for optimization."

"The most valuable feature of CloudCheckr CMx High Security is granular reporting. Additionally, the user interface is easy to use."

"I mostly like the dashboards."

"The price is reasonable, considering the value it delivers."

"It offers a detailed examination of your cluster, including the types of instances utilized, allocated CPU and RAM, and resource distribution for specific applications."

"Self-healing could be a bit smoother and a bit cleaner, easier to access and more functional. That would help."

"CloudCheckr CMx High Security is complex. There are a lot of menus, and if you do not know what you are looking for you can get lost. However, the interface is self-explanatory. It's easy to understand where to go to get what you want."

"The solution must improve its user interface."

"The solution needs to work better with larger capacities of data."

"What needs to be improved in CloudCheckr CMx High Security is integration. All the clouds are going quite fast, for example, all the cloud providers: Microsoft, Google, etc. CloudCheckr CMx High Security is good with AWS, no doubt about it, but with Azure and Google Cloud, I find that the solution is slow in that direction. If the vendor planned for CloudCheckr CMx High Security to be automated just for AWS, then it does make sense. If not, if the vendor is also targeting good integration with Google and Microsoft, then CloudCheckr CMx High Security integration needs improvement, in particular, it has to be faster. At the moment, its integration with Azure is not as good as its integration with AWS. With GCP, integration is nowhere."

"The performance of the tool really needs to be improved."

"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."

"The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."

"There is a significant potential for enhancing it through the incorporation of advanced technologies like AI and generative AI."

"Faster monitoring could potentially improve overall stability in the production environment."

"The integration with other solutions could be improved."

"The cost is on par with other providers."

"A license is needed to use CloudCheckr CMx High Security, but because we are a managed service provider, the price of the license would vary. It depends on the type of cloud users we have, for example, it would be some type of percentage or monthly billing, etc."

"The solution is reasonably priced."

"The cost of the tool may seem nominal compared to the potential savings in infrastructure expenses."

"The cost is cheap. Kubecost has an open-source core."

"The real savings come from using Kubecost features like autoscaling and serverless functions to optimize your resource usage. If you treat it like a data center migration without fine-tuning, it might cost more."