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

Infracost vs Matterport 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

Infracost
Ranking in AWS Marketplace
115th
Average Rating
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Matterport
Ranking in AWS Marketplace
20th
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the AWS Marketplace category, the mindshare of Infracost is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Matterport is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
AWS Marketplace Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Matterport0.2%
Infracost0.2%
Other99.6%
AWS Marketplace
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2801481 - PeerSpot reviewer
SRE II at a tech vendor with 5,001-10,000 employees
Shift-left cost insights have made teams question infrastructure changes in everyday reviews
The best features Infracost offers include shift-left visibility, so we see the impact before it actually happens, and we do not manually consult with cloud pricing each time, and we do not guess. We have precise information instead. It pulls the pricing difference and drops it in the code review interface. Having that precise information in the code review interface makes us question the changes. Infracost has positively impacted my organization by enhancing our engineering team's cost consciousness. We no longer treat the FinOps operations as something that we do at the end of the month. We do this regularly and this changes a lot for us, so this is super important.
CA
Resource Technology Senior Vdc Engineer at reiSource
Detailed 360° site capture has transformed project documentation and now streamlines insurance claims
Matterport needs to find a way to do what they are doing with SLAM instead of terrestrial. The biggest drawback to Matterport these days, and why other tools are being used, is that you only have a certain amount of time to capture data, and unfortunately, terrestrial devices do not really allow for that. Second, you have not made it permanent for manually aligning captures in the Matterport app. Every now and then it allows me to do a manual align, but that needs to be a standard feature. Instead of saying, 'I cannot find any alignment, please scan again,' it should give me the option of just moving the alignment myself. I understand that Matterport is built for you to need to do things in a certain sequence, but the reality is that sometimes I have to go back to rooms later on. Sometimes there are rooms that are symmetrical, and in those cases, it can really help if you have some user input. It saves a lot of time and it saves a lot of capture time. On top of all of that, the actual application itself is very unstable. You reach a certain amount of captures and the device does not work anymore. But then that messes up the entire workflow. If the project is too big to work on the app and I have to build another one, I need to create two projects and then wait for those to merge. And then I have to take both projects individually and align them to each other and let that merge again. So now I am talking about waiting a day for the thing to automatically align, and then I have to merge it manually, and then wait a day for those results. So instead of getting results in one day, I have to do it in two days, and it is all because of the reliability of the application. I think that Matterport is overpriced. At this point, there should be some SLAM integration with maybe terrestrial as an anchor if needed. And if they want to push all of these products such as CAD and point clouds from their data sets, then they should truly work on making sure that that data is accurate enough for what it needs to do. The market is oversaturated with people with Matterport devices trying to do Lidar jobs, but the accuracy is not good enough. Getting a CAD plan exported, but it is not a vector, and it is a locked-down PDF essentially makes it useless. If you want to keep things locked down and not able to be vectorized, then that seems to say a lot about the accuracy, in which case point clouds and vector CAD should not be available at all. I think that there is much to be improved. There should never be a situation where Matterport cannot find data to match and it asks me to rescan. At the end of the day, if it was using photogrammetry and something such as lighting was the reason why it cannot find any alignment points, that would be one thing, but you have Lidar included. So if you have Lidar, that means there are overlapping points, and if there are overlapping points, there should always be a match. If you cannot find a match, that means that your algorithm is not mature enough or your Lidar data is not actually accurate enough. The scalability is pretty low, considering the fact that the price to scale up sites is already immensely high, and there is no benefit to having multiple devices at a time. You can capture a site faster, but as I said, it ends up taking the same amount of time by the time it auto-processes it, I manually merge, and then have to wait for that merger to process. Somebody can go and get half of it done in one day, half of it done in another, and it will take the same amount of time. Matterport needs to find a way in its apps to allow me to merge prior to doing the full processing, so that way I do not lose that same time twice. Pricing is pretty straightforward, but it is overpriced. That is the reason I found a solution to take my Matterport spaces down and put them on a local desktop so that way it can be embedded, shared, or kept locally. The first reason is for security purposes. The second reason is because the price is entirely too high, but I understand that once you are in this ecosystem, it is hard to leave. There is only a tool, I think Doxel, which will allow me to transfer over Matterport projects into their ecosystem so that at least on their site, I can access the scans done for Matterport as well as from their own software. But there is no solution to actually take your data from Matterport and move it somewhere else. So once you join, you are basically locked in. And the unfortunate thing is that it is really set up for real estate tours as far as the pricing is concerned. So if you are using it for anything other than that, you are definitely overpaying.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Infracost has positively impacted my organization by enhancing our engineering team's cost consciousness."
"Infracost has positively impacted my organization by helping me reduce my infrastructure cost and review expenses, and I am able to remove all unnecessary infrastructure."
"Matterport has given me an option to document site progress without having to use cameras and rely on subcontractors who often miss out on imagery."
"Matterport has impacted my organization positively because we don't have to all go to the construction sites."
"Matterport is basically an international standard that allows, in and of itself, to make contact with customers, create new customers and retain them, and offer cutting-edge technology."
"Matterport positively impacts my organization because what you see is what you get, capturing the authenticity of the spaces, thereby cutting down potential client issues since the representation is true to the actual space."
"Matterport is a very handy software; it is very user-friendly, and I love using it while working."
"I estimate that we save about 60% of the time that would be spent going back to the site to keep re-measuring and confirming."
 

Cons

"I would appreciate some improvements in terms of processing speed, and I would be happy to see a slightly better user interface from my perspective, but everything else is excellent."
"Infracost could be improved in terms of processing and the user interface, as there are times that these aspects could be enhanced."
"The scalability is pretty low, considering the fact that the price to scale up sites is already immensely high, and there is no benefit to having multiple devices at a time."
"Regarding Matterport's scalability, I find it very difficult to assess because it is very expensive."
"I think Matterport could be improved with better integration with CAD systems."
"One way Matterport can be improved is that capturing using the Matterport camera tends to be quite bulky and slow."
"I personally use the Pro2 version of Matterport, which uses infrared detectors, but I find scanning outdoors frustrating because its accuracy is affected by sunlight."
"Regarding accuracy, Matterport's accuracy is basically good, but not the very best because, as I mentioned earlier, it shows the ducts and everything; it does not show the proper imagery system or the accurate output in results."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which AWS Marketplace solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
49%
Transportation Company
10%
Healthcare Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Construction Company
43%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Insurance Company
5%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Infracost?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been great.
What needs improvement with Infracost?
I would appreciate some improvements in terms of processing speed, and I would be happy to see a slightly better user interface from my perspective, but everything else is excellent.
What is your primary use case for Infracost?
My main use case for Infracost is tracking and analyzing the cost impact of infrastructure changes before they are actually provisioned. This manages the entire multi-cloud infrastructure that we a...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Matterport?
The recurring costs for Matterport are reasonable, with the costs of acquiring the device, especially the latest one, the Matterport Pro2, being more than €5,000. Obviously, one always hopes that t...
What needs improvement with Matterport?
I think Matterport could be improved with better integration with CAD systems. The quality of the output files of Matterport could have higher quality and better integration with platforms used by ...
What is your primary use case for Matterport?
My main use case for Matterport is with real estate agencies on the Andalusian coast, primarily to create virtual tours for remote sales or at least remote lead generation for foreign clients.In a ...
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Infracost vs. Matterport and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.