Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

CoreStack vs Harness comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

CoreStack
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
20th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Harness
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
9th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Build Automation (7th), Static Application Security Testing (SAST) (16th), Feature Management (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of CoreStack is 1.1%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Harness is 1.9%, up from 1.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Cost Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Harness1.9%
CoreStack1.1%
Other97.0%
Cloud Cost Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2783919 - PeerSpot reviewer
Associate Vice President at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Cost reports have driven accurate AWS workload optimization and continue to guide savings
I can suggest improvements for CoreStack, especially regarding reporting periods. I noticed that some of the cost optimization reports generated potential savings while considering systems that have only maximum utilization of 1% or 2%. The recommendations made in CoreStack to delete a machine have the potential to generate major cost savings, but such machines should not be listed for deletion if they have maximum CPU utilization of 1%. I have concerns about needed improvements primarily regarding AWS. If a customer is running ten virtual machines and one machine has a maximum of 1% utilization, it is considered as an idle instance in the report, which completely ignores that particular machine. This should not be the approach.
reviewer2787357 - PeerSpot reviewer
Site Reliability Engineer at a tech vendor with 1,001-5,000 employees
Automated delivery has made production releases safer and has reduced deployment incidents
The first point for improvement is the steep learning curve, where concepts such as services, environment, pipelines, and templates take time to understand. New users often need training before becoming productive, resulting in slower initial onboarding compared to simpler CD tools. An improvement idea is better guided onboarding with more opinionated defaults and examples. The second improvement can be on UI complexity and navigation; the UI can feel cluttered with many options and finding past executions, logs, or specific settings sometimes takes extra clicks, leading to small but noticeable productivity loss. Simplified UI views for common workflows and improved search and filtering could help. I also see cost and licensing as potential areas for improvement, as pricing can feel high for small teams and advanced features are tied to higher tiers, which may limit adoption for startups or smaller organizations. Flexible pricing models and more essential features in lower tiers could address this issue.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"My advice for others looking into using CoreStack is that anyone who is looking to optimize their workload cost for public cloud services should start using CoreStack because of the reports and granularity it produces to optimize cost, which will benefit them."
"CoreStack has positively impacted my organization by saving hours of time for reporting—for example, the governance report which my employees used to take at least four hours for one customer, and since I'm sending out 20 reports every month, that equates to 80 hours, thus saving me two man-weeks every month and approximately $8,000 in pure savings if I estimate $100 an hour for my architect."
"Currently, I think CoreStack is the best FinOps tool available in the market, which is why we are using it."
"Mainly through improved cost visibility and optimization with CoreStack, we have achieved a good ROI, and for some customers we were able to achieve more than forty percent cost savings by identifying unused and idle resources in their accounts, leading to significant cost savings after we completed the cleanup of those resources."
"My advice for others looking into using CoreStack is that anyone who is looking to optimize their workload cost for public cloud services should start using CoreStack because of the reports and granularity it produces to optimize cost, which will benefit them."
"Production deployments are faster and more reliable, especially for Kubernetes and cloud-based services, with significant reduction in deployment-related incidents, faster recovery when issues occur, faster, more confident releases, increased deployment frequency with higher confidence, and better governance and compliance that improved visibility and coordination across Dev, QA, Ops, and SRE teams."
"By adopting templates and various different pipelines across our own IDP platform, we have saved upwards of 30 to 40% of development time and also reduced risks of failures or error rates by upwards of 70%."
"The features of Harness are valuable, supporting rolling deployments, basic deployments, and blue-green deployments with zero downtime."
"Harness starts integrating with organizations, making everything automated without the need for manual interruption."
"Harness integrates all functions like execution pipelines, environment checks, and log monitoring in one place."
"Harness integrates all functions like execution pipelines, environment checks, and log monitoring in one place, making it convenient."
"It's a highly customizable DevOps tool."
"Everything in Harness is configured and runs smoothly."
 

Cons

"I noticed that some of the cost optimization reports generated potential savings while considering systems that have only maximum utilization of 1% or 2%. The recommendations made in CoreStack to delete a machine have the potential to generate major cost savings, but such machines should not be listed for deletion if they have maximum CPU utilization of 1%."
"I noticed that some of the cost optimization reports generated potential savings while considering systems that have only maximum utilization of 1% or 2%. The recommendations made in CoreStack to delete a machine have the potential to generate major cost savings, but such machines should not be listed for deletion if they have maximum CPU utilization of 1%."
"I give it an eight because, as I mentioned, a few things from the billing operations need to be added, and we need more security features, particularly since the market is increasingly demanding better security tools for cloud management platforms, including cloud security posture assessments."
"I believe CoreStack already has very good features in the governance and security parts, but stability can definitely be improved."
"When integrating Harness with more than twenty applications in one place, it becomes less stable, causing improvements to be necessary."
"There's also room for improvement in debugging pipeline issues, which can sometimes become complex."
"When deploying multiple components to multiple environments, like production and BCP, failures sometimes occur. Improvements are needed when deploying one component to one environment."
"Harness setup and configurations could be made easier to configure, which would be helpful."
"The first point for improvement is the steep learning curve, where concepts such as services, environment, pipelines, and templates take time to understand."
"I prefer the previous less compact UI version of Harness, which showed more details on the screen."
"Infrastructure as code or pipeline as code is something that Harness severely lacks."
"Even with automation, there's a requirement for manual change requests for approvals."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
28%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Large Enterprise7
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CoreStack?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing is pretty good because we received private pricing, which I cannot disclose. The setup was included as a one-time expense, and licensing is str...
What needs improvement with CoreStack?
CoreStack can improve by adding a segregation of reserved instances that are shared across child accounts or managed accounts from the parent account, ensuring a cost allocation for all reserved in...
What is your primary use case for CoreStack?
My main use case for CoreStack is for cost optimization and billing operations, and I'm using it a bit for SecOps and CloudOps, but majorly for FinOps and BillOps. A specific example of how I use C...
What do you like most about Harness?
It's a highly customizable DevOps tool.
What needs improvement with Harness?
Harness UI can do a lot of good things. Harness's UI should not feel very complicated. At the current stage, it feels very commercialized and compared to other platforms such as Argo CD or Jenkins,...
What is your primary use case for Harness?
Harness has been implemented in our organization for one of our clients for approximately 8 to 10 months. Harness is particularly utilized for our infrastructure provisioning pipelines and our RITM...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Armory
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

CAMS
Linedata, Openbank, Home Depot, Advanced
Find out what your peers are saying about CoreStack vs. Harness and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.