IBM Turbonomic alternatives and competitors

Azure Cost Management helps us analyze the data on service usage and decide how to go ahead with the recommendations. You can automate it by writing custom automation scripts. We're still evaluating how to implement Cost Management in parallel with Turbonomic to find out what suits us best.

We're using Cost Management for rightsizing our Azure capability. At the moment, our virtual machines in Azure are set up using templates, so they're not rightsized to be cost-effective. We need to control our costs.

We need tools to manage and understand how to rightsize and save money. On the other side, we also need to know where we don't have enough resources and how much we need to spend to improve service. Our team has about six people monitoring budgets and cost management. It's six engineers looking to optimize and manage costs.

Azure Cost Management is integrated into Azure products. It's a built-in function that Microsoft makes available to help you get an idea of how much money you're spending. Within Azure, you have a thing called a reserved instance. Instead of paying as you go, Microsoft offers a discount if you buy a lot of resources in advance. That's called a reserved instance.

The built-in reports from Azure Cost Management aren't intelligent. It will estimate where you could potentially save money, but it's not like Turbonomic, which has a smart engine. It is dynamically managing and automating the transition to the right cost model. It's a dynamic cost management module. 

It should be dynamic and adaptable instead of static. Azure should allow you to scale up and scale down on demand. Sometimes if you decide not to pay, it will affect your performance. The more you spend, the more resources you get.

I've been using Azure Cost Management for less than a year. We have been using it for the last couple of months. It is constantly developing as a function within Azure. This cost management module we're using now was not available half a year ago.

This is a Microsoft cloud service, so it can scale up as much as you can afford. 

We're paying for premium support, so there's no issue.

We started with Turbonomic running on-prem but on an evaluation basis. We're evaluating Turbonomic and Azure Cost Management side by side to see the best tool to use. We don't want to use two.

The good thing about Azure Cost Management is that we don't have to pay extra because it's a built-in function, but it takes more resources to manage, and it's not dynamic. Turbonomic has a small cost, but it's not very much and gives us much more functionality. Turbonomic is an artificial intelligence kind of advisor. It will say, "Okay, these are all the machines. This is what you're paying, but you need to do this and this." Then you can then automate your cost savings.

Azure Cost Management provides suggestions for what to do, whereas Turbonomic offers cost monitoring, and it can adjust VMs on the fly. Azure gives you an overview and tells you how much to invest to save money. It's a lengthy process because there's no backend logic to automate and make the best decision for you. Turbonomic does this now. It will analyze the same data as Azure Cost Management. It knows what you're running and what you're paying for it.

There's no setup. It's a built-in product that comes with Azure cloud services. It's enabled by default, but you have to configure it to run reports and analyses. It's not like Turbonomic, which is a third-party product that requires you to purchase a license.

I rate Azure Cost Management seven out of 10. Cloud computing services are expensive, and if you're not aware of what you're doing, you can run up a costly bill. It is essential to have, but you need to know the performance you need for the machines you're running in Azure. You have to tailor it to your budget.

Some companies don't do cost management because of the overhead. They're quite happy to pay for things to be running. It all depends. If you're running machines in Azure that make you a lot of money, then cost management is always good. In our case, we're a charity, so we need to be efficient with our money.

I am a system administrator. My role is to oversee the support of the company's network. I also take care of the deployment and maintenance. We use Veeam ONE to optimize hypervisors or my virtual machines.

The solution includes reporting on the virtual machines and the sources. It centralizes well. 

Veeam ONE is integrated with Veeam backup, so it includes reporting on both. I don't have to go back and forth between different applications to get the report I need.

Veeam ONE does the basic job of reporting, but it does not meet my requirements of automated resolution. 

In future releases, I would like to see the solution provide auto resolution and auto relocation of resources.

I have been using Veeam ONE for three years.

Veeam ONE performs as required. It is stable.

This solution is scalable. It depends on the kind of functions you require and what you want to get out of the product.

I would rate Veeam ONE's technical support a four out of five.

Positive

The initial setup of Veeam ONE is simple and straightforward.

The deployment was done in-house. It takes less than one day to deploy Veeam ONE. To implement, I created a virtual machine and installed Veeam ONE on it. I just had to attach it to the Hyper-V service.

Veeam ONE saves me a lot of time, so I don't have to look and monitor each service on its own.

We have a three-year license with Veeam billed annually. The cost is based on the number of core servers. 

I would rate the pricing of the solution a three out of five.

I am looking into Turbonomic to see if it can do more than Veeam ONE.

Veeam ONE is a good product if you are looking for monitoring and reporting. If you are looking for automated solutions, you will have to look somewhere else.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten overall.