We performed a comparison between CloudStack and VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth 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."Over the years, we have valued CloudStack for its stability."
"You can use a single API to get things done, rather than multiple APIs on multiple modules."
"The API with CloudStack made integration into various external facing web applications simple enough."
"The platform is very simple to scale-out."
"It was easy to deploy, both for PoC and production (with HA)."
"CloudStack’s private gateway networking feature is what enables us to offer utmost security and confidentially to our customers and partners, by enabling them to connect to their virtual data centers via dedicated, encrypted, private fiber lines that never touch the public internet space. Ease of setup and management are certainly important additional benefits for us on the engineering team."
"We had a relevant reduction of bureaucracy tasks."
"The most valuable feature from my point of view is access to environment via console through separate browser window."
"The pricing is rather competitive right now."
"The product is easy to use in terms of monitoring all the environments. It works for multiple clouds."
"The solution is useful for cloud transparency and visibility in reports and dashboards that I have generated, especially the pre-populated dashboards."
"The solution is good for cloud cost management."
"We are able to create an internal price of the product that we can then sell to clients. We get the cost plan at a good discount and then resell it with a mark up to our enterprise-level clients. This flexibility in pricing is one of the solution's best features."
"It's stable. For report presentation, it's been fast."
"We use dashboards quite heavily, but one of the features that have really stood out is some of the policies we've created to alert us of particular situations."
"The most valuable thing I have found is the cost saving recommendations"
"I encountered some stability issues. When I tried to remove high-capacity virtual machines it took a long time to update, and sometimes the VM status failed to update properly in the cloud database. This occurred multiple times, even though I had sufficient resources."
"The area of improvement could be the regionalization aspect. For example, managing multiple regions or HubStack deployments together was not thought out thoroughly in the versions I used. We faced issues around managing the global infrastructure and had to develop around it."
"There are some minor things that can be improved even more such as, perhaps, a bit more polishing on the GUI side to catch up with the API possibilities (which are really extensive) but otherwise nothing critical."
"The user can't upload SSH keys from the UI. We have to use the API for this, and it is not always convenient."
"Lack of support for third-party software vendors such as Veeam and Zerto creates limitations on comprehensive offerings which would include backup and disaster recovery."
"We did encounter issues with stability, and the main issue was secondary storage. When it is not available, XenServers and hypervisors are affected. And CS doesn’t do anything to reboot, or fix. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn’t, considering their approach – CS just orchestrates everything else on the hypervisor and storage level."
"The absence of the feature, deploy an instance from a snapshot, is the weak point of the platform. It is a feature that everyone needs nowadays."
"A technology upgrade is one item which could be improved upon a lot."
"CloudHealth needs to start building out Turbonomics-types of features that help the customers who are using CloudHealth really understand everything down to the server level, the virtual machine level."
"If you are working with the OS you need help and other connectors to get more information."
"It would be helpful to have a mobile version or a tablet version, especially for people who are outside of the office."
"They should provide information or tools to tune the cloud resources according to the environment size."
"The performance and accuracy of Cloud Health need to be improved."
"The Perspectives feature could be better."
"The export features regarding CSV files and specifically around identifying savings plans have room for improvement, as well as the drill-down features for reservation utilization."
"I would like to see better integration from CloudHealth to create easier setup and implementation."
More VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth Pricing and Cost Advice →
CloudStack is ranked 12th in Cloud Management with 29 reviews while VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth is ranked 15th in Cloud Management with 9 reviews. CloudStack is rated 8.0, while VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of CloudStack writes "A solution that strikes a balance between user-friendliness, scalability, and stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth writes "Useful for Cloud transparency and visability". CloudStack is most compared with OpenNebula, vCloud Director, Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI), Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure and VMware Aria Automation, whereas VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth is most compared with Azure Cost Management, IBM Turbonomic, VMware Aria Operations, Cloudability and Densify. See our CloudStack vs. VMware Aria Cost powered by CloudHealth 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.
