We evaluated VMware, vRealize, and Gotti. At the time, Turbonomic was called VMTurbo. We chose VMTurbo because it was the best fit. Gotti didn't do enough, and vRealize was way out of our price range. They later changed their price structure, but we stayed with Turbonomic.

We did a lot of research, especially at that time, and there aren't really a whole lot of other software solutions out there, at least nothing that's comparable to Turbonomic. There are other companies that do something similar, but they don't have anywhere near the level of complexity or the type of algorithms that Turbonomic is using to keep the system stable. 

I don't remember what we evaluated at the time, other than VMware, because everybody works with Vmware, but the other solutions we had looked at were not even in the realm of Turbonomic, so we didn't evaluate them for more than a day.

We have monitoring tools out there that can tell us things that Turbonomic can tell us. I think the difference is the ability to just click a button and have it happen versus having to do it manually as well as checking the costs. While we could use a monitoring tool, we wouldn't be able to track our costs, and that's been a big impact to the company because we've saved a lot of money. So, if someone said, "Hey, we've got this monitoring tool, and we want to have you decide between Turbonomic and this monitoring tool." I wouldn't even look at the monitoring tool. I would say, "We are going to stay with Turbonomic."

We evaluated and purchased Apptio Cloudability. Turbonomics offered an opportunity to reduce the costs of our physical environment, but it's also part of our cloud journey. The cloud capabilities were a significant factor for us. 

We did have to go through and do a comparison of vROps, DRS, and Turbonomic in order for me to get it on board at the company.

The performance assurance and automatic allocations (the automation that comes with it) really drove our decision to go with Turbonomic. They have a level of automation that the competitors don't.

Turbonomic understands the resource relationships at each of the elements of our environment's layers and the risks to performance for each. That is part of what makes them a key differentiator, especially against something like a vROps. Their algorithm is based on: in the moment, what is being used, and what is needed. It will not make an automated move that may cause another issue. Whereas, VMware DRS would move stuff based on data that it had pulled the night before, which may not be valuable or still valid. At that point, you could move something that needed CPU, but you moved it someplace else where now there is a memory constraint instead of a CPU constraint.

A big deciding factor with Turbonomic was you can set how much trending data that you want to keep, whether it is a 30, 60, 90, 120 days, etc. You can set your trending there, then you can schedule your actions based on utilization over that time frame, e.g., the last 90 days.

We did try some other solutions as PoCs before we worked with Turbonomic. Unfortunately, I am not aware of who those companies were because that was before I came onboard with the team. The big thing that it always came down to was whether we were going to adopt the entire implementation setup and configuration aspect. For example:

• How much work was it going to take to deploy the appliance? 
• How many man-hours would it take to configure it? 
• What the continuous configuration and management was going to be?
• Was it really saving us time and money in the long run?

Other solutions always fell flat because of how much involvement it would require from IT to deploy and work it, but also because of the ongoing configuration and maintenance of the appliance.

We evaluated four or five tools, such as AppTio and Flexera. We went for Turbonomic because the algorithm was very good, conservative, and trustworthy.

Their support was also very good. There was a lot of hand-holding. There were regular meetings. For any questions we had, good support was always available.

We did look at some other options. We had issues with some of the other options and they weren't able to do tasks as efficiently. Turbonomic had a different environment just for testing it out. Another coworker also had used Turbonomic, so we tested it out in the environment.

We looked at VMware, the cost of using some of the VMware products, and how much it costs to do that. I don't remember the names of the other products. I just remember Turbo was high on a couple of our lists and we reached out. Cisco had a relationship with Turbo so they brought them in and we decided to test it out.

There weren't a lot of other options available at the time, but we did look at three others. I know there are other companies on the market. I don't remember which ones were competing with it at the time. There was only really one other in that space at the time, and there's a bunch now. Then, VMware was there competing as well, saying, "You just don't have it configured right. We can do better," but they really couldn't.

The model behind the scene that Turbonomic uses to make decisions just has a better way of balancing resources. It considers a lot more factors.

We use other tools to provide application-driven prioritization, to show us how top business applications and transactions are performing.

There are a lot of options available, but compared to other products, Turbonomic has many features. Other products are at a more beginning stage.

We've turned down VMware's vRSOps advanced suite, which is similar in its basic functionality. The problem is that they are behind and just not at the point where we see it being a replacement for what we're using today with Turbonomic. At the same time, vRSOps does have advantages.

The basic pro for VMware is that you have one vendor with one solution, which is a nice simplification. The cons are that the vRSOps group and VMware, in general, don't have support anywhere near the level of Turbonomic, and the functionality isn't necessarily there as an orchestration and workload placement tool.

Where vROps shows its value is from an operational monitoring and troubleshooting perspective. We have seen value in that aspect and in fact, this is why we still have it in our organization.

We did an architectural review. We had to look at other options, but I don't know exactly what those were.

Some of the tools which already exist are not that great. They really need to up their game if they're going to keep up with something like Turbonomic.

I do not recall evaluating other solutions.

I looked at CloudHealth, Cloudability, and one other. We went with Turbonomic because of the intelligence engine. It uses AI to make determinations on data that's coming in at a faster pace than humans can comprehend. People can't monitor a thousand VMs and keep track of them on a daily, hourly, or minute-by-minute basis. With Cloudability, it's not done as efficiently and it's not done with AI. It has cloud-native optimization tools, and they're not as accurate. Turbonomic provides you with accurate, almost up-to-the-minute, information about your application performance, VMs, databases, and storage performance at a much faster pace than humans could ever do. That's why I liked it so much.

Turbonomic does give you visibility into your environment’s performance as well as analytics, from the application layer all the way down the stack. But it does not give you as much as others do. More specialized applications, like New Relic, go much deeper, but with those products, those features are an additional cost. How much is enough is what it really comes down to. How much monitoring and in-depth analytics do you need? Some applications need much more and some don't. If a website is running fine, don't worry about it. In that case, you just need to know the up/down status and that's it. If you're running database queries and things are running slow, you might need deeper analytics. Turbonomic doesn't do that.

Whenever we have a specific application that we need to go into deeper, we will use New Relic or SolarWinds or the like; a dedicated application performance monitoring tool. Turbonomic does have the ability to target apps, but we're not quite there yet.

We also looked at VMware vRealize. The big difference between vRealize and Turbonomic is integration. It's easier to integrate Turbonomic than it is vRealize. There are more components to install.

I did some research on other products out there, but nothing met what I required from. Some of the products were cloud-only solutions, and that wasn't going to work for us because we are an all on-prem environment. However, we still think that the model that Turbonomic uses to make us determinations (its secret sauce) is actually the best thing out there.

There are competitors out there. Since we're in Azure, which is the only cloud vendor that we use today, it has something called cost Azure Advisor, to help you with costs. I've tried it because it comes with it and we're paying for it, but Turbonomic is a better tool for us. We always seem to gravitate more toward it because everything is right there in that single pane of glass. It gives you recommendations based on Reserve Instances, even though right now, unfortunately, that's not working 100 percent. It does a lot of things, like the family types and the deleted volumes, and that type of automation for us, which is awesome. Azure Advisor does give you that as well, but it doesn't have everything. We have to drill down in it and it's not easy to navigate.

vCops and Foglight.

We looked at one or two other solutions, but those would probably have been renamed or rebranded since then, just like Turbonomic.

We did not. The teammate mentioned previously had used the product in a prior role and was able to convince the required parties of the tool's value.

No.

vROPs.

We evaluated Foglight and SolarWinds Virtualization Manager before deciding on Turbonomic (or VMTurbo at the time).

We evaluated vROps before selecting Turbonomic. Setting up vROps was much more complex. It required more overhead and maintenance. Getting the information we needed was more complicated. 

We looked at vMan and vROps.

Yes.

We evaluated VMware vROps before selecting Turbonomic.

No, but as mentioned before we did have vCOPS and chose this as a replacement.

Veeam.

VMware Operations Manager.

We evaluated VFoglight.

We evaluated vROps and SolarWinds Virtual Manager.

We tested Turbonomic against VMware vROps. Both solutions will tell you, "Oh, you should do this or that. This is an issue. You can do this." However, at the time that we tested vROps, it was an older version. They weren't offering the ability to schedule right-sizing and automating it, where Turbonomic does. vROps would just alert you, so you would have to do the right-sizing yourself. Therefore, vROps would have been a bit more manual with more operational needs.

Yes, we used SolarWinds Virtualization Manager.

Actually no. We were looking for a specific need, and I really hadn't seen anybody else out there besides what vCOPS said they could do to deliver automatic load balancing of virtual machines as well as right sizing VMs automatically, and I don't know anybody else out there doing that same thing.

No

No

We looked at vCenter Operations Manager, but the effort involved just to stand up a PoC environment was significantly more than with VMTurbo, so after a web demo of vCOps we decided not to proceed with that option.

I have used and tried other products before. Turbonomic is the best for two main reasons: Simplicity and accuracy.

Many products provide tons of information. It's impressive, but superfluous. Turbonomic provides you the information you need - and can provide more - but the dashboards are simple and easy to understand.

We had read about many other products and our thought, based on other peers' experience, was that this was the best solution for the money.

Yes we did. We evaluated vRealize Automation and while I liked some of the additional features, for what we needed it for in our environment, Turbonomic was the better choice financially.

Yes, vROps.

VMware vRealize.

We evaluated a few products: SolarWinds, we already have implemented monitoring other things but the virtual monitoring left me with a lot to desire.

Veeam, another application we have implemented elsewhere but was very pricey to get what I wanted.

vCOPS, very cumbersome and hard for me to trust it when the native performance monitoring doesn't work well already.

We did evaluate VMware vCentre Operations Manager before choosing VMTurbo Operations Manager, but found it lacked some of the important features that VMTurbo provided.

We had been using VMware's ESXi Enterprise Plus with all of its features, including DRS and HA. Turbonomic simply fit the bill when we looked at it.

No, this was provided to me.

We didn't evaluate any other options.

Yes. I remember Foglight being a long distant second.

We looked briefly at VMware Operations Manager. We selected Turbonomic Operation Manager because of the features and level of support obtained from the company.

Foglight, VeeamOne, Solarwinds, Xangati

VMware Operations Manager.

We did not eval other options, as there weren't that many to choose from, and Turbonomic was the most attractive.

Yes, VMware was an option.

There were quite a few solutions presented from EMC, Cisco, and others.

N\A

No.

We did not evaluate other options.

They have a free version of the exact same appliance which just has features greyed out. Try it out and see what they can do for you for free straight from their website.

Yes, vROps.

Yes, we ran a short trial of Dell Foglight for Virtualisation.

vROps.

Yes we looked at SolarWinds.

Before choosing this product, we evaluate d VMware vROps, ManageEngine AppManager, and OpManager.

Foglight and vROps. Each had their strengths, but overall what suited my company's needs best was Turbonomic.

VMware Operations Manager. Like most things VMware, it is too pricey.

We evaluated CloudPhysics. We experienced issues due to the fact that it is a Cloud SaaS solution and faced bandwidth challenges, which resulted in the product being unusable.

N/A

None.

SolarWinds and Veeam One.

Yes, VMware Operations Manager which was really more expensive with no automation, and their reporting is not what I wanted.

Looked at VMware product but was not impressed, Turnonomic was easier to operate.

We didn't evaluate any other vendors.

Yes, vROPS.

Dell Foglight and SolarWinds.

We checked out vROPs and a Veeam solution, but they just didn't cut it.

No.

We were using SolarWinds Virtualization Manager.

I looked at some others but would like not to put names out there. Just know we though this was the best solution.

VMware vRealize Operations was reviewed but did not sufficiently automate the process and did not seem to be as sophisticated in its analysis.

VMware Ops Manager.

vFoglight, Solarwinds Virtual Manager, Cibra.

vRealize, Foglight, VeeamOne

Yes, other solutions were evaluated: vCOPS, Uila, and Opvizor.

Yes we used VMware vRealize and Log Insight.

We looked at numerous solutions including SCOM, Veeam, and custom solutions.

NA

vCOPS.

vCOPS.

Yes VMware.

We considered VMware Operations Manager.

We didn't evaluate other options. We were already using other monitoring tools and switched from them to Turbonomic.

We have only used Microsoft Operations Manager and Virtual Machine Manager, neither was set up to give us the in-depth look that VMTurbo was designed to do out of the box.

n/a

No.

eG Innovations, Nagios, Cacti, openstack, vRealize SCVMM.

We attempted to leverage a built-in VMware solution, but it lacked depth.

We evaluated vRealize Operations.

Yes, Veeam One.

No.

SolarWinds - Vops (or whatever it's called now)

No.

Yes, we did evaluate other products but to be honest, I cannot recall at this time.

eG, SCVMM, Nagios.

VCOPS, Veeam, Solarwinds.

We used vRealize but it only works with VMware and that only works with thresholds. We didn't save the OPEX and we didn't solve the issues.

We looked at SolarWinds and vCOps. They were not has easy to use compared to Turbonomic.

N/A

No.

No.

We evaluated vCOPS but decided we received way more functionality and automation with VMTurbo.

VMware vRealize.

Yes, but this was cost effective and best.

None.

No.

We actually purchased vROps but it wasn't enough.

We did not.

We had a prior installation of VCOperations. We did not feel we were getting real value from that installation - or at least that the release of vCOPS that we were on was not providing value.

Veeam MP for VMware.

This is the best solution.

There were not a many virtualization management software options available in our price range. VMTurbo (at the time) was the only product recommended to us.

We looked at vCenter operations manager, but at the time VMTurbo offered more features.

As I said, Veeam MP for VMware.

No

Yes.

Yes. vRealize & Cirba.

vCOPS and VKernel - both were traditional monitoring tools, that are reactive, whereas VMTurbo is proactive.

None.

No.

Yes. vKernel, vCOPs.

No.