We performed a comparison between CloudCheckr and Sonatype Container based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Microsoft, VMware and others in Cloud Cost Management."It will automatically suggest areas for optimization."
"The recommendation section is pretty helpful."
"It's one of the leading players for cloud optimization. It's hard to find anything better."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution is mostly stable."
"The most valuable feature of CloudCheckr CMx High Security is granular reporting. Additionally, the user interface is easy to use."
"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 scalable for our purposes."
"The most valuable features of the Sonatype Nexus Container are the safe repository it provides, we do not have a lot of risk from security flaws. Security scanning and other security feature are helpful to reduce vulnerabilities. For example, if I'm receiving something from a public repository, such as Maven Deposit, I don't know if it is will open me up to vulnerabilities, but if you have the Sonatype Nexus Container, it's safer in terms of security."
"The solution needs to work better with larger capacities of data."
"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 performance of the tool really needs to be improved."
"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."
"The solution must improve its user interface."
"The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."
"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."
"Self-healing could be a bit smoother and a bit cleaner, easier to access and more functional. That would help."
"Sonatype Nexus Container you could improve the search functionality. Whenever I try to search a specific version of the library from the Sonatype Nexus Container console, I don't think the first referral that the user is receiving is very informative. They cannot see which one is the most updated library inside the Sonatype Nexus Container when I'm searching for a specific library."
CloudCheckr is ranked 7th in Cloud Cost Management with 8 reviews while Sonatype Container is ranked 14th in Cloud Cost Management with 1 review. CloudCheckr is rated 7.6, while Sonatype Container is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of CloudCheckr writes "Beneficial granular reporting, highly stable, and excellent support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sonatype Container writes "Beneficial security, reliable, and scalable". CloudCheckr is most compared with Azure Cost Management, AWS Trusted Advisor, Apptio One, VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth and Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks, whereas Sonatype Container is most compared with .
See our list of best Cloud Cost Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Cost Management reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
