We performed a comparison between CloudCheckr and VMware Aria Operations based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is mostly stable."
"The solution is scalable for our purposes."
"The best feature I like about CloudCheckr CMx High Security is its simplicity. I love that it's not rocket science to use the solution. Even if you're not familiar with the cloud, you can easily figure out how to use CloudCheckr CMx High Security. You can use AWS, you can use Azure, and you can use GCP with the solution because the integration is quite simple. You can also use multi-cloud with it, and you could see the billing part. You'll have complete visibility into your cost which I love about the solution. I also love that data on any security issues and vulnerabilities are available on the go with CloudCheckr CMx High Security. You don't need to do anything different. Just run the scan and you'll have all these open findings in the tool, in terms of the priority level, so if it's critical, it will tell you, "It's critical," and you need to fix it right away."
"The most valuable feature of CloudCheckr CMx High Security is granular reporting. Additionally, the user interface is easy to use."
"The recommendation section is pretty helpful."
"It's one of the leading players for cloud optimization. It's hard to find anything better."
"It will automatically suggest areas for optimization."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to check the right-sizing of a machine because that way I can assign the real resources that are needed."
"There are many valuable features. The top feature is historical trending analysis and future workload predictions. There's a workload forecaster/predictor model in there and it's very helpful for capacity planning."
"It gives me more insight on issues like: Do we need to add more hardware to the clusters; when disks are low, to add more disk space. It's a preventive type of maintenance."
"The solution gives suggestions regarding whether resources are underutilized or overutilized."
"The most valuable feature is the ability it has to adjust the efficiency inside the infrastructure."
"All our capacity management and capacity planning processes are based on vROps. Without this tool, we are unable to predict what we need, at what time we need to purchase new hardware, whether we should upgrade, etc."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the effectiveness of hardware availability and flexibility."
"It has improved our organization with respect to allowing us to size our environments correctly. We get metrics about what our stuff is actually using, how we can scope for future projects, where can we save some resources."
"The performance of the tool really needs to be improved."
"The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."
"CloudCheckr CMx High Security is complex. There are a lot of menus, and if you do not know what you are looking for you can get lost. However, the interface is self-explanatory. It's easy to understand where to go to get what you want."
"The solution needs to work better with larger capacities of data."
"Self-healing could be a bit smoother and a bit cleaner, easier to access and more functional. That would help."
"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."
"The solution must improve its user interface."
"What needs to be improved in CloudCheckr CMx High Security is integration. All the clouds are going quite fast, for example, all the cloud providers: Microsoft, Google, etc. CloudCheckr CMx High Security is good with AWS, no doubt about it, but with Azure and Google Cloud, I find that the solution is slow in that direction. If the vendor planned for CloudCheckr CMx High Security to be automated just for AWS, then it does make sense. If not, if the vendor is also targeting good integration with Google and Microsoft, then CloudCheckr CMx High Security integration needs improvement, in particular, it has to be faster. At the moment, its integration with Azure is not as good as its integration with AWS. With GCP, integration is nowhere."
"Where the product could improve would be the UI."
"Monitoring is useful but if the solution can't automate or function without my input, it's a waste of my time. That's where I found out there are some issues with this product, there are elements that are not as intuitive as they could or should be."
"We would like to see an improved licensing model to be set up for this solution. The current model charges per CPU, as opposed to being product-based, which would allow us to monitor our complete virtual infrastructure under a single license."
"With our environment right now, stability is the one sticking point. There hasn't been a great deal of handholding in between the different versions, so we've run into problems with there being what I would call "more than just the average change between versions" and it's caused a loss of data for us in the past."
"The descriptions are not quite as user-friendly as I would like but, for the most, it's part pretty user-friendly. They could also improve on the badging nomenclature they have for batches in the system, for determining the health of a certain aspect of the systems."
"Adding some intelligence to VMware Aria Operations, such as event correlation, and some level of AI apps will improve the solution, similar to what we see with the more advanced monitoring solutions that we don't currently have."
"In the past, when we have raised priority one tickets and they have sent us level one engineers. This wasted time because the L1 was only able to perform the troubleshooting steps that we had already completed."
"I would like to see a full RESTful API for everything and PowerCLI modules that interact with more of the different features. It doesn't have a complete API set and it's not a complete PowerCLI module yet. I'd love to see that developed more, to be able to interact with other applications and automation."
CloudCheckr is ranked 24th in Cloud Management with 8 reviews while VMware Aria Operations is ranked 2nd in Cloud Management with 360 reviews. CloudCheckr is rated 7.6, while VMware Aria Operations is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of CloudCheckr writes "Beneficial granular reporting, highly stable, and excellent support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Aria Operations writes "It has good stability, but the report-generating feature needs improvement". CloudCheckr is most compared with Azure Cost Management, AWS Trusted Advisor, Apptio One, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and IBM Turbonomic, whereas VMware Aria Operations is most compared with VMware Aria Automation, VMware vSphere, IBM Turbonomic, Nutanix Prism and Veeam ONE. See our CloudCheckr vs. VMware Aria Operations report.
See our list of best Cloud Management vendors.
We monitor all Cloud 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.