No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

CloudCheckr vs Red Hat CloudForms comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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

CloudCheckr
Ranking in Cloud Management
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
11
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Cost Management (13th), Managed Cloud Services (6th), AI Observability (26th)
Red Hat CloudForms
Ranking in Cloud Management
36th
Average Rating
6.4
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Cloud Management category, the mindshare of CloudCheckr is 2.3%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat CloudForms is 1.9%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
CloudCheckr2.3%
Red Hat CloudForms1.9%
Other95.8%
Cloud Management
 

Featured Reviews

AbhishekGupta2 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr PreSales Cloud Architect at a outsourcing company with 10,001+ employees
Centralized cloud costs have boosted savings while reporting and user experience still need work
The best features CloudCheckr offers include out-of-the-box security and compliance check features that provide over 35 different types of compliance checks at no cost, best practice checks, and alerts. Another valuable feature is the multi-cloud overview, providing unified reporting across AWS and Azure while allowing us to create different types of dashboards based on who logs into the platform. Additionally, from an MSP standpoint, there is good ease of deployment, especially the billing and chargeback functionality for a reseller or managed services provider. CloudCheckr has positively impacted my organization by helping us manage multiple customers and tens of thousands of resources while retaining performance and visibility due to its multi-cloud support. We do not have to worry about jumping from one platform to another, and the better MSP support is beneficial from a billing and chargeback automation standpoint. The integration in compliance helps identify missing areas within our customer environments and improves them. On average, it has helped us provide approximately 15 to 20% savings through right-sizing or idle resource elimination. These are some of the immediate cost savings our customers have experienced after implementing recommendations from the tool.
Ilhami Arikan - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Services Automation Technologies Manager at Garanti Teknoloji
A stable solution that helps to provision servers
We use the solution to provision servers.  I am impressed with the product's ability to create dynamic catalogs.   The solution's provisioning engine needs to be improved.  I would rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.  I would rate the product's scalability a seven out of ten and…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"CloudCheckr is filled with useful features, that help us learn and to deliver the best recommendations on the data we have."
"The most valuable feature of CloudCheckr CMx High Security is granular reporting. Additionally, the user interface is easy to use."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"CloudCheckr has impacted my organization positively by making things easier and saving time, approximately three hours a week."
"The recommendation section is pretty helpful."
"The solution is scalable for our purposes."
"The billing feature is great, it is easy to set up, the solution is mostly stable, the scalability is great, and it offers excellent technical support."
"I have seen a return on investment of 100%, with significant cost avoidance and measurable savings within the first few months of deployment."
"The stability of the solution is very good. We haven't had any issues with it."
"The multi-tenancy feature has been very helpful for our clients. It has been working fine and seamlessly for them. Its interface is also very simplified, and it is also an open and easy-to-scale solution."
"Red Hat CloudForms is stable once it is up and running."
"The most valuable features of Red Hat CloudForms are the benefit of the collective functionality."
"Red Hat CloudForms is a stable product. There is no issue with the stability."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to create dynamic catalogs."
"The most valuable features of Red Hat CloudForms are the benefit of the collective functionality."
"The optimization of the solution is quite interesting, as it means we can prepare a bunch of VMs with self-service provisioning."
 

Cons

"CloudCheckr can be very slow sometimes."
"Self-healing could be a bit smoother and a bit cleaner, easier to access and more functional. That would help."
"The performance of the tool really needs to be improved."
"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."
"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 needs to work better with larger capacities of data."
"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."
"The complexity of the solution is a bit high in comparison to VMware."
"Red Hat CloudForms could improve by allowing more customization of reports. We have to do a lot of coding to accomplish what we want."
"All of the areas of Red Hat CloudForms could improve. It doesn't do half of the things that it says it can do out of the box."
"Red Hat CloudForms could improve by allowing more customization of reports. We have to do a lot of coding to accomplish what we want. Additionally, the compatibility with the multi-cloud could improve. The latter versions of the solution removed Google support and the cost comparison between other clouds was high."
"The solution is still quite immature."
"The solution is still quite immature."
"All of the areas of Red Hat CloudForms could improve. It doesn't do half of the things that it says it can do out of the box. It takes configuration to make any of it work, which is not uncommon for solutions similar to this. However, it is frustrating."
"Our clients had challenges or issues with the updates. Its updates should be better managed. They should provide quicker and more stable updates. Its stability can also be better. We initially faced ease-of-use and compatibility issues while integrating it. We had a lot of compatibility issues with other products. Our clients are concerned about whether it is under IBM or it is still Red Hat. Clients are not very clear about the support, and they're not really happy with it. Currently, they're getting support from Red Hat, but going forward, they're not really clear about what would be the life cycle of the product, which is a concern for them."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 product's licensing is based on the number of servers."
"The price of Red Hat CloudForms was not competitive, it was expensive."
"Red Hat CloudForms is a bit expensive."
"Red Hat CloudForms has a subscript-based pricing model. The cost is approximately $20,000 annually which allows you to use as many users as you want."
"It is definitely cheaper than VMware. Everything is included. There is no challenge there."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Management solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
8%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudCheckr ?
Pricing is feature-tiered under the MSP licensing, and I would say the pricing was quite competitive and fair. It was neither inexpensive nor too costly compared to competition, yet it provides goo...
What needs improvement with CloudCheckr ?
Areas where CloudCheckr can be improved include simplifying the user experience, as some areas seem complex to my teammates, who felt overwhelmed by the many dashboards available. Another area is d...
What is your primary use case for CloudCheckr ?
My main use cases for CloudCheckr include cloud cost visibility and optimization, identifying idle resources, right-sizing, and cost trends. I also use it from a cloud governance perspective, for s...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

CloudCheckr CMx High Security, CloudCheckr CMP
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Accenture, Logitech, Ingram, Cloudar, Infor, DXC, Cornell University, DLT, Lumen, Lightstream, Choice Hotels, B-Tech, SmileShark, PTP, Explicity, JCH Technology, Siemens Mobility
Cox Automotive, Penn State, FICO, G-ABLE, Seneca College, ITandTEL, The Paris Lodron University of Salzburg (PLUS), MyRepublic, Macquarie, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, CBTS, Network Data Solutions (NDS)
Find out what your peers are saying about CloudCheckr vs. Red Hat CloudForms and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.