CloudCheckr vs PerfectScale comparison

"The recommendation section is pretty helpful."

"The initial setup is straightforward."

"It will automatically suggest areas for optimization."

"The solution is scalable for our purposes."

"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."

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

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

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

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

"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 reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."

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

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

"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 solution must improve its user interface."

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

"The solution is reasonably priced."

"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 cost is on par with other providers."