We performed a comparison between Cloudability and IBM Turbonomic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Cost Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The support from IBM is fantastic"
"It has already given us insight into how to optimize. So, we are now ramping up steadily its usage."
"The sizing recommendation will look, and say, "You are only using this at 80%," then recommend a better fit for you."
"Each user can have their own dashboard that they want to consume. Instead of having to share one dashboard for multiple users, you can create individual views for each user to view, and that view will contain only their own accounts, which allows for separation of data."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to create reports and dashboards."
"The tool helps us to resize on AWS correctly."
"The pricing isn't too expensive."
"Cloudability takes care of identifying and managing the cloud."
"It is a good holistic platform that is easy to use. It works pretty well."
"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 recommendation of the family types is a huge help because it has saved us a lot of money. We use it primarily for that. Another thing that Turbonomic provides us with is a single platform that manages the full application stack and that's something I really like."
"I like Turbonomic's automation and AI machine learning features. It shows you what it can do, but it can also act on recommendations automatically. Integration with an APM system makes the AI/ML features truly effective. Understanding what the application is doing and the trends of application behavior can help you make real-world decisions and act on that information."
"We can manage multiple environments using a single pane of glass, which is something that I really like."
"I have the ability to automate things similar to the Orchestrator stuff. I do have the ability to have it do some balancing, and if it sees some different performance metrics that I've set not being met, it'll actually move some of my virtual machines from, let's say, one host to another. It is sort of an automation tool that helps me. Basically, I specify the metric, and if I get a certain host or something being over-utilized, it'll automatically move the virtual machines around for me. It basically has to snap into my vCenter and then it can make adjustments and move my virtual machines around. It also has some very nice reporting tools built around virtual machines. It tells you how much storage, memory, or CPU is being used monthly, and then it gives you a very nice way to be able to send out billing structure to your end users who use servers within your environment."
"Turbonomic can show us if we're not using some of our storage volumes efficiently in AWS. For example, if we've over-provisioned one of our virtual machines to have dedicated IOPs that it doesn't need, Turbonomic will detect that and tell us."
"The primary features we have focused on are reporting and optimization."
"We would like them to have a linear regression, so we can be predictive for budgets, allocations, and the year's follow ups. We also want to have a longer window of analytics with better certainty that our workload will fit the model, not just in a two week window."
"We have dealt with a few technical support people where we ask for one thing and they might not deliver straightaway. It seems like they are a stretched across multiple customers."
"The dashboard needs to include more graphs per team to show what individual teams are spending in a given time period."
"They can improve the custom range of the network."
"Cloudability needs to focus on more cloud providers."
"Right now, what we're doing is we are manually putting the data in it, which is something which we don't like about Cloudability."
"The API is not well-documented. It is not straightforward and difficult to use. This needs to be improved, as it is very difficult for our developers to develop automation around it."
"I would like the API functionality to improve. The update time after uploading data could also be improved."
"Recovering resources when they're not needed is not as optimized as it could be."
"Before IBM bought it, the support was fantastic. After IBM bought it, the support became very disappointing."
"I would like Turbonomic to add more services, especially in the cloud area. I have already told them this. They can add Azure NetApp Files. They can add Azure Blob storage. They have already added Azure App service, but they can do more."
"Since the introduction of a HTML 5 based interface, our main - but minor - criticism of a less than intuitive operation managers' GUI would be the area of improvement."
"There is room for improvement [with] upgrades. We have deployed the newer version, version 8 of Turbonomic. The problem is that there is no way to upgrade between major Turbonomic versions. You can upgrade minor versions without a problem, but when you go from version 6 to version 7, or version 7 to version 8, you basically have to deploy it new and let it start gathering data again. That is a problem because all of the data, all of the savings calculations that had been done on the old version, are gone. There's no way to keep track of your lifetime savings across versions."
"I would love to see Turbonomic analyze backup data. We have had people in the past put servers into daily full backups with seven-year retention and where the disk size is two terabytes. So, every single day, there is a two terabyte snapshot put into a Blob somewhere. I would love to see Turbonomic say, "Here are all your backups along with the age of them," to help us manage the savings by not having us spend so much on the storage in Azure. That would be huge."
"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."
"After running this solution in production for a year, we may want a more granular approach to how we utilize the product because we are planning to use some of its metrics to feed into our financial system."
Cloudability is ranked 5th in Cloud Cost Management with 13 reviews while IBM Turbonomic is ranked 1st in Cloud Cost Management with 204 reviews. Cloudability is rated 7.6, while IBM Turbonomic is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Cloudability writes "An excellent solution for dealing with multiple clouds". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Turbonomic writes "The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them ". Cloudability is most compared with Azure Cost Management, VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth, Densify, Harness and CloudCheckr , whereas IBM Turbonomic is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, Azure Cost Management, Cisco Intersight, VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth and VMware Aria Automation. See our Cloudability vs. IBM Turbonomic report.
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.
