We performed a comparison between IBM Turbonomic and vRealize Business for Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Microsoft, VMware and others in Cloud Cost Management."It has automated a lot of things. We have saved 30 to 35 percent in human resource time and cost, which is pretty substantial. We don't have a big workforce here, so we have to use all the automation we can get."
"The biggest value I'm getting out of VMTurbo right now is the complete hands-off management of equalizing the usage in my data center."
"The ability to monitor and automate both the right-sizing of VMs as well as to automate the vMotion of VMs across ESXi hosts."
"We have VM placement in Automated mode and currently have all other metrics in Recommend mode."
"The notifications saying, "This is a corrective action," even though some of them can be automated, are always welcome to see. They summarize your entire infrastructure and how you can better utilize it. That is the biggest feature."
"Rightsizing is valuable. Its recommendations are pretty good."
"We have seen a 30% performance improvement overall."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the metering capability."
"This solution has made us aware that we are over-provisioning our virtual machines."
"The way the dashboard works with the main orchestrator to combine different types of cloud providers is helpful."
"The most valuable feature is that it has a very easy and adaptive look and feel, compared with some other cloud solutions."
"The most valuable feature is that it allows us to compare the billing between the clouds."
"I like the integration with other applications or vendors."
"The product provides excellent daily reports."
"The flexibility is the product's most valuable feature."
"The planning and costing areas could be a little bit more detailed. When you have more than 2,000 machines, the reports don't work properly. They need to fix it so that the reports work when you use that many virtual machines."
"It would be nice for them to have a way to do something with physical machines, but I know that is not their strength Thankfully, the majority of our environment is virtual, but it would be nice to see this type of technology across some other platforms. It would be nice to have capacity planning across physical machines."
"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."
"While the product is fairly intuitive and easy to use once you learn it, it can be quite daunting until you have undergone a bit of training."
"Some features are only available via changes to the deployment YAML, and it would be better to have them in the UI."
"In Azure, it's not what you're using. You purchase the whole 8 TB disk and you pay for it. It doesn't matter how much you're using. So something that I've asked for from Turbonomic is recommendations based on disk utilization. In the example of the 8 TB disk where only 200 GBs are being used, based on the history, there should be a recommendation like, "You can safely use a 500 GB disk." That would create a lot of savings."
"It sometimes does get false positives. Sometimes, it'll move something when it really wasn't a performance metric. I've seen it do that, but it's pretty much an automated tool for performance. We've only got about 500 virtual machines, so lots of times, I'm able to manage it physically, but it's definitely a nice tool for a larger enterprise that might be managing 2,000 or 3,000 virtual machines."
"The old interface was not the clearest UI in some areas, and could be quite intimidating when first using the tool."
"It would be a good idea for VMware to be compatible with the most popular orchestration tools in the market."
"Better integration with other VMware toolsets would be beneficial."
"It's not always easy to find the information you need. You must have a lot of technical experience to find the right location for what you're implementing within the program."
"There are some kinks to resolve with the Web GUI user interface, as it freezes at times."
"The solution's private cloud is much too expensive."
"If you haven't established a vSphere cluster and you only have a single server to integrate, you can't deploy any service."
"The pricing model is complicated and would be more predictable if it were simplified."
"The knowledge base is not available for the engineers, which is something that needs to be improved."
IBM Turbonomic is ranked 1st in Cloud Cost Management with 204 reviews while vRealize Business for Cloud is ranked 12th in Cloud Cost Management with 10 reviews. IBM Turbonomic is rated 8.8, while vRealize Business for Cloud is rated 8.4. 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 vRealize Business for Cloud writes "Complete solution for automation, orchestration, and end-to-end lifecycle management". IBM Turbonomic is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, Azure Cost Management, Cisco Intersight, VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth and VMware vSphere, whereas vRealize Business for Cloud is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, VMware Aria Automation and VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth.
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.
