We performed a comparison between AWS Savings Plans and Azure Cost Management 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 most valuable feature of AWS Savings Plans is we can discuss budgets briefly during our confirmation process since we are aware of our usual consumption patterns. Creating budgets in this regard would be beneficial, as it would allow us to consume only what we need, without including reserve instances that do not serve our purpose."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"What I like the most about Azure Cost Management is that it's similar to a native service, and it has very well-defined product features, particularly if a customer is moving to Azure, then it gives proper insight in terms of compatibility and what benefits a customer can get from the solution."
"Cost management is the console's most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features of Azure Cost Management are the ability to set standards or tagging policies and initiatives. You can achieve higher cost optimization."
"The most valuable feature is that it helps us to better forecast and reduce costs."
"We don't actually use the Azure Cost Management features. We have our own capabilities. We put our own technology on top of Azure as Azure doesn't deliver a really good cost optimization, so our customers come to us to enhance what they're potentially doing inside their Azure platform."
"During the two years I've been working with this solution, it has only been down once or twice. Thus, I would rate the stability of the solution at nine out of ten."
"The resource forecasting feature is invaluable. Secondly, the ability to drill down to the regional and resource level is incredibly helpful for pinpointing where my costs are accruing."
"In the future, it would be interesting if there could be a combination of Savings Plans and some Reserved Servers."
"The visibility of AWS Savings Plans could improve."
"Optimization and scalability could be increased."
"Stability is an area in the solution that lacks in certain areas. So, it needs to be improved."
"I would like to have added to Azure Cost Management, drill down features from within the cost analysis reporting."
"Cost Management could always provide more details. The more information, the better. They just need to build on what they have now."
"I would like to see better customization."
"We would like to see more flexibility added to this solution, such as being able to compare reservations, or compare costs across multiple financial years and report on the reasons for deviation in spend."
"The affordability of licenses and subscription fees is a critical consideration, as not all companies can easily manage the cost of expensive licenses."
"The forecasting model can improve Azure Cost Management."
AWS Savings Plans is ranked 6th in Cloud Cost Management with 2 reviews while Azure Cost Management is ranked 2nd in Cloud Cost Management with 41 reviews. AWS Savings Plans is rated 9.0, while Azure Cost Management is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of AWS Savings Plans writes "Low maintenance, scales well, and straightforward implementation". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure Cost Management writes "A good, but limited cost information solution with strong analytics but requiring more flexibility in its reporting functionality". AWS Savings Plans is most compared with Zesty, Cloudability and IBM Turbonomic, whereas Azure Cost Management is most compared with IBM Turbonomic, VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth, Cloudability, Zabbix and Datadog. See our AWS Savings Plans vs. Azure Cost Management 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.
