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

Finout vs IBM Turbonomic 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
19th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Turbonomic
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
1st
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (5th), Cloud Management (4th), Virtualization Management Tools (5th), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (11th), Cloud Analytics (1st), AIOps (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of Finout is 1.1%, down from 1.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 5.9%, down from 14.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Cost Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic5.9%
Finout1.1%
Other93.0%
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.
reviewer1446966 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Systems Engineer at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them
The management interface seems to be designed for high-resolution screens. Somebody with a smaller-resolution screen might not like the web interface. I run a 4K monitor on it, so everything fits on the screen. With a lower resolution like 1080, you need to scroll a lot. Everything is in smaller windows. It doesn't seem to be designed for smaller screens. When I change the resolution to 1080, I only see half of what I would on my big 4K monitor. It would be annoying to have to scroll to see the flow chart. They have a flow chart that goes top to bottom like a tree. On a lower resolution, it might be nice if that scrolls horizontally because it's long, narrow, and tall. It's only three icons wide, but it's 15 icons tall. I think it would be helpful to have the ability to change that for a smaller screen and customize the widget.

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."
"Due to automation of workload placements Infra Management has been more efficient and smooth."
"Turbonomic's realtime environmental monitoring and aggregated dashboard have been instrumental in expansion decision making for our infrastructure."
"Performance is something that should constantly be monitored and constantly be worked on, and Turbonomic is doing that in the background, without me having to manually do it, which is a great help."
"As a manager of a large complex critical healthcare infrastructure, this product has been a huge benefit to me and my team."
"The storage load balancing has helped us avoid LUNs going full."
"Turbonomic is an excellent product as far as we are concerned for managing the pod sizes and determining the best sizing for those pods."
"Customer service has always been exceptional and technical support has been very quick to respond and very knowledgeable."
"VMTurbo Operations Manager has given myself and my staff more time to focus on other projects and tasks as well as improved overall performance of the virtual environment."
 

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."
"The GUI and policy creation have room for improvement. There should be a better view of some of the numbers that are provided and easier to access."
"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."
"The reporting needs to be improved."
"We wish Nimble was available as a storage provider."
"Waiting for the HTML5 GUI since flash has refresh issues."
"When upgrading prior versions, I sometimes lost prior performance data. Even support was not able to retrieve it."
"The product needs tighter integration points with storage vendors, the mainstream top 5-6 are added but it would be nice to see more."
"The user interface is quite dated."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I consider the pricing to be high."
"I don't know the current prices, but I like how the licensing is based on the number of instances instead of sockets, clusters, or cores. We have some VMs that are so heavy I can only fit four on one server. It's not cost-effective if we have to pay more for those. When I move around a VM SQL box with 30 cores and a half-terabyte of RAM, I'm not paying for an entire socket and cores where people assume you have at least 10 or 20 VMs on that socket for that pricing."
"If you're a super-small business, it may be a little bit pricey for you... But in large, enterprise companies where money is, maybe, less of an issue, Turbonomic is not that expensive. I can't imagine why any big company would not buy it, for what it does."
"In the last year, Turbonomic has reduced our cloud costs by $94,000."
"We see ROI in extended support agreements (ESA) for old software. Migration activities seem to be where Turbonomic has really benefited us the most. It's one click and done. We have new machines ready to go with Turbonomic, which are properly sized instead of somebody sitting there with a spreadsheet and guessing. So, my return on investment would certainly be on currency, from a software and hardware perspective."
"It was an annual buy-in. You basically purchase it based on your host type stuff. The buy-in was about 20K, and the annual maintenance is about $3,000 a year."
"Contact the Turbonomic sales team, explain your needs and what you're looking to monitor. They will get a pre-sales SE on the phone and together work up a very accurate quote."
"It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
885,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise57
Large Enterprise147
 

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Turbonomic?
It offers different scenarios. It provides more capabilities than many other tools available. Typically, its price is set as a percentage of the consumption of some of our customers' services. The ...
What needs improvement with Turbonomic?
The implementation could be enhanced.
What is your primary use case for Turbonomic?
We use IBM Turbonomic to automate our cloud operations, including monitoring, consolidating dashboards, and reporting. This helps us get a consolidated view of all customer spending into a single d...
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

No data available
Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Nutanix, Apptio and others in Cloud Cost Management. Updated: March 2026.
885,837 professionals have used our research since 2012.