We had our own in-house data warehousing tool. There was definitely an improvement in implementing CloudHealth. We have been in touch frequently to understand the solution better.

We have some experience with RackWare and Red Hat. Right now, I believe this solution to be number one in the market. It's great for central management. We can manage more than one client on a cloud quite easily. It also has the most features out of the three.

I also have experience with Central ITCS, which I've used for a few months.

Both the products have a good amount of features and functionality. Which is better depends upon what kind of usage your end customer needs. For example, if I'm a startup and I'm not interested in a lot of features, CloudHealth is a good option. If I'm only interested in a couple of features, then I may go with Central ITCS. 

Compared to AWS, the historic data on CloudHealth is a lot more helpful. From the AWS perspective, I think the historic data is not able to give us the full set of data. It would make a difference if we could automate the reports when we wanted to.

The ones that I have been personally using are CloudHealth and CloudCheckr, however, those are more around the cloud cost analytics, the cloud cost management. Those companies are starting to, change a bit. You've got Turbonomic and companies like that, that are coming from the on-prem asset level up, where you would use Turbonomics to crawl internal VMware infrastructure types of environments and tag specific applications. Let's say that I'm trying to think of how I'm going to migrate my marketing application from my on-prem environment to the cloud. That marketing application is built at three tiers. You've got a web tier, an application tier, and a database tier. That's multiple servers, multiple layers of applications. How do you analyze what that footprint looks like so I can make a fair approach to what I'm going to need in an Azure or an AWS cloud environment to move that application?

Turbonomic has approached it from that perspective where they come in and they ask questions such as how many IOPS is that application consuming? What's the performance of the servers at a CPU and storage and a memory level, so that they can actually map that into equivalent Amazon EC2 servers or Azure servers of sizes of X, Y, or Z.

That's where Turbonomic has really approached it from that kind of foundational infrastructure up whereas a CloudHealth or a CloudCheckr have approached it more from an application already being in the cloud and drilling down to costs. 

Now we're trying to figure out how to optimize that footprint. What I'm seeing is both those types of companies are starting to meet in the middle where Turbonomic is now starting to add features around cloud cost management and CloudHealth is starting to get down into the Turbonomic side of assessment of what you're trying to move to the cloud.

I can start to see the melding of that space over time, where there are more and more of these on-prem application performance management APS-type of applications. They are starting to bleed up into the cloud and the cloud and cloud applications are starting to bleed down that on-prem world.

We had another product but it was a bit too complicated to use.

I work with VRealize Operations Suite also. All of the Cloud Suite.

It was easy for me because the customer is German, the owner is German, and I work with the Swedish part of it. We have this cloud journey with different answers, on cloud or on-premises, so we need to see where we should place all of our load. It also depends on where in the world we use it.