We performed a comparison between IBM Turbonomic and VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The automation and orchestration components are definitely the best part, as you can tell it what it can do and when, and just let it be."
"On-premises, one advantage I find particularly appealing is the ability to create policies for automatic CPU and memory scaling based on demand."
"I like the analytics that help us optimize compatibility. Whereas Azure Advisor tells us what we have to do, Turbonomic has automation which actually does those things. That means we don't have to be present to get them done and simplifies our IT engineers' jobs."
"With Turbonomic, we were able to reduce our ESX cluster size and save money on our maintenance and license renewals. It saved us around $75,000 per year but it's a one-time reduction in VMware licensing. We don't renew the support. The ongoing savings is probably $50,000 to $75,000 a year, but there was a one-time of $200,000 plus."
"We can manage multiple environments using a single pane of glass, which is something that I really like."
"We have VM placement in Automated mode and currently have all other metrics in Recommend mode."
"My favorite part of the solution is the automation scheduling. Being able to choose when actions happen, and how they happen..."
"I like Turbonomic's automation and AI machine learning features. It shows you what it can do, but it can also act on recommendations automatically. Integration with an APM system makes the AI/ML features truly effective. Understanding what the application is doing and the trends of application behavior can help you make real-world decisions and act on that information."
"We are able to create an internal price of the product that we can then sell to clients. We get the cost plan at a good discount and then resell it with a mark up to our enterprise-level clients. This flexibility in pricing is one of the solution's best features."
"The solution is useful for cloud transparency and visibility in reports and dashboards that I have generated, especially the pre-populated dashboards."
"It's stable. For report presentation, it's been fast."
"The solution is good for cloud cost management."
"The most valuable thing I have found is the cost saving recommendations"
"The product is easy to use in terms of monitoring all the environments. It works for multiple clouds."
"This solution is fast and very easy to understand, even if you are not a technician."
"The pricing is rather competitive right now."
"Before IBM bought it, the support was fantastic. After IBM bought it, the support became very disappointing."
"The deployment process is a little tricky. It wasn't hard for me because I have pretty in-depth knowledge of Kubernetes, and their software runs on Kubernetes. To deploy it or upgrade it, you have to be able to follow steps and use the Kubernetes command line, or you'll need someone to come in and do it for you."
"We don't use Turbonomic for FinOps and part of the reason is its cost reporting. The reporting could be much more robust and, if that were the case, I could pitch it for FinOps."
"Additional interfaces would be helpful."
"Remove the need for special in-house knowledge and development."
"The issue for us with the automation is we are considering starting to do the hot adds, but there are some problems with Windows Server 2019 and hot adds. It is a little buggy. So, if we turn that on with a cluster that has a lot of Windows 2019 Servers, then we would see a blue screen along with a lot of applications as well. Depending on what you are adding, cores or memory, it doesn't necessarily even take advantage of that at that moment. A reboot may be required, and we can't do that until later. So, that decreases the benefit of the real-time. For us, there is a lot of risk with real-time."
"It can be more agnostic in terms of the solutions that it provides. It can include some other cost-saving methods for the public cloud and SaaS applications as well."
"There are a few things that we did notice. It does kind of seem to run away from itself a little bit. It does seem to have a mind of its own sometimes. It goes out there and just kind of goes crazy. There needs to be something that kind of throttles things back a little bit. I have personally seen where we've been working on things, then pulled servers out of the VMware cluster and found that Turbonomic was still trying to ship resources to and from that node. So, there has to be some kind of throttling or ability for it to not be so buggy in that area. Because we've pulled nodes out of a cluster into maintenance mode, then brought it back up, and it tried to put workloads on that outside of a cluster. There may be something that is available for this, but it seems very kludgy to me."
"The performance and accuracy of Cloud Health need to be improved."
"They should provide information or tools to tune the cloud resources according to the environment size."
"I would like to see better integration from CloudHealth to create easier setup and implementation."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile version or a tablet version, especially for people who are outside of the office."
"The solution doesn't offer the best functionality, unfortunately. Some features just simply aren't on offer. The solution needs to offer more product milestones."
"The Perspectives feature could be better."
"CloudHealth needs to start building out Turbonomics-types of features that help the customers who are using CloudHealth really understand everything down to the server level, the virtual machine level."
"The export features regarding CSV files and specifically around identifying savings plans have room for improvement, as well as the drill-down features for reservation utilization."
More VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM Turbonomic is ranked 4th in Cloud Management with 204 reviews while VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth is ranked 15th in Cloud Management with 9 reviews. IBM Turbonomic is rated 8.8, while VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM Turbonomic writes "The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth writes "Useful for Cloud transparency and visability". IBM Turbonomic is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, Azure Cost Management, Cisco Intersight, VMware vSphere and Cloudability, whereas VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth is most compared with Azure Cost Management, VMware Aria Operations, Cloudability, Densify and ServiceNow. See our IBM Turbonomic vs. VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth report.
See our list of best Cloud Management vendors and best Cloud Cost Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.
