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

Finout vs IBM Kubecost 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

Finout
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
16th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Kubecost
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
29th
Average Rating
9.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of Finout is 1.1%, down from 1.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Kubecost is 2.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Cost Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Finout1.1%
IBM Kubecost2.5%
Other96.4%
Cloud Cost Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2795433 - PeerSpot reviewer
Cloud Ops Lead at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Unified cloud cost views have improved anomaly detection and enabled proactive budget control
The right sizing feature is okay. It could be used, but I feel its functionality isn't as strong as the cloud-native solutions, so GCP, AWS, and Azure. They all have better right sizing capabilities, so you probably wouldn't carry out right sizing from Finout. You'd want to do it directly in the cloud platforms. The right sizing feature needs more development. Also, the reservations analysis feature isn't quite detailed enough as it should be. If you're making purchasing decisions based off of a cloud tool, it's probably better right now to do it directly through the cloud-native tooling rather than through Finout. Those are the two features where I feel they could be improved. It's a great tool, but it does have those two areas of improvement in the right sizing and the reservation sections. If those sections were functioning very well and were very deep, then I would give it a ten out of ten.
DIRK UYTTERHOEVEN - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Enterprise Architect at DV Consulting
Identifies and eliminates overprovisioning of expensive resources like storage, highly scalable and offers performance
I like the overall product because I can select what monitoring should be enabled and whatnot. In our case, we really focus on performance because it's clear that the price is related to most performance setups. So the more performance, the more expensive. So we look into the performance that the customer needs, and then based upon that feedback from the remote control, we change the parameters. And even the end user will not notice it is not using it, so we just make money without any impact on the end users.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"In terms of money saved, organizations could very easily save anywhere from ten to thirty percent of their cloud costs."
"The price is reasonable, considering the value it delivers."
"It offers a detailed examination of your cluster, including the types of instances utilized, allocated CPU and RAM, and resource distribution for specific applications."
"I mostly like the dashboards."
 

Cons

"The right sizing feature is okay. It could be used, but I feel its functionality isn't as strong as the cloud-native solutions, so GCP, AWS, and Azure."
"There is a significant potential for enhancing it through the incorporation of advanced technologies like AI and generative AI."
"The integration with other solutions could be improved."
"Faster monitoring could potentially improve overall stability in the production environment."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"The cost of the tool may seem nominal compared to the potential savings in infrastructure expenses."
"The cost is cheap. Kubecost has an open-source core."
"The real savings come from using Kubecost features like autoscaling and serverless functions to optimize your resource usage. If you treat it like a data center migration without fine-tuning, it might cost more."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
15%
Insurance Company
15%
Construction Company
11%
Marketing Services Firm
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with Finout?
The right sizing feature is okay. It could be used, but I feel its functionality isn't as strong as the cloud-native solutions, so GCP, AWS, and Azure. They all have better right sizing capabilitie...
What is your primary use case for Finout?
Our use case is integrating cloud costs from a multi-cloud estate to have one pane of glass for cost visibility. We use it for reports, but there's also other functionality that we've liked using, ...
What advice do you have for others considering Finout?
I would recommend them to use it. It's a good tool. The company is still quite new and young, but they're rapidly developing, and their support is great. The Finout team seemed like they could be f...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Kubecost - Amazon EKS cost monitoring
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Nutanix, Apptio and others in Cloud Cost Management. Updated: March 2026.
885,728 professionals have used our research since 2012.