CloudCheckr vs PerfectScale comparison

"The initial setup is straightforward."

"It will automatically suggest areas for optimization."

"CloudCheckr has enabled an average cost saving of approximately 25% from the last year, and this occurred while also increasing the scale of production."

"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 solution is mostly stable."

"The solution is scalable for our purposes."

"CloudCheckr has impacted my organization positively by making things easier and saving time, approximately three hours a week."

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

"Automated resource optimization using different policies based on the environment enabled the organization to achieve infrastructure cost savings."

"PerfectScale made our Kubernetes optimization effortless; it found wasted resources, lowered our cloud costs, and improved performance almost instantly."

"The cluster and workload autoscaler gives us the ability to have control over all the workloads' resources instead of managing them one by one."

"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."

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

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

"The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."

"Some aspects could be made more customizable, such as the dashboard and UI."

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

"The solution must improve its user interface."

"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."

"With their in-place optimisations, stateful set optimisation would be a great addition."

"I think they should focus more on Kubernetes features that allow on-the-fly resource allocation without the need to restart services."

"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 is on par with other providers."