The ROI for us is a reduction in operating expenditures. We fix problems before they become issues that our clients see. I don't need to spend an hour a month putting together reports for upper management. We've identified the canned reports they'd like to see and Turbonomic builds them in PDF files. I'm still working 50-60 hours a week, but that's not 51 and 62.

I don't know what we would have bought if we didn't have it, so it's hard to say how much we have saved. We may have bought more hardware thinking we needed more hardware when we didn't. We just needed to shuffle stuff around. So it's hard to say what we would have done if we didn't have it, and if we didn't have that reporting telling us, "Hey, this is where the problem is".

We broke even after year two. We definitely got our return on investment, but I think there is a lot more to come.

Turbonomic has helped optimize cloud operations and reduced our cloud costs significantly. Overall, we are at about 40 percent savings, and we spend about three million a year just in Azure. It reduces the size of the VMs, putting them into the right template for usage. People don't realize that you don't have to future-proof a virtual machine in Azure. You just need to build it for today. As the business or service grows, you can scale up or out. About 90 percent of all the costs that we've reduced has been from sizing machines appropriately.

The solution has absolutely helped reduce our IT-related CapEx and OpEx. The money that we have saved by minimizing our costs in the cloud allows us to spend more in the cloud versus buying physical hardware. We had at one point three data centers at approximately 18 offices with servers in them (all VMware). We are now down to three offices that have servers and a total of five complete servers. That is all been directly related to our savings in Azure and the ability to continue building without exceeding what we have previously spent. We budget three million a year. If I can shave 30 to 40 percent off of that, then we can build 30 to 40 percent bigger in Azure.

Turbonomic has saved a lot of human resource time and cost involved in monitoring and optimizing our estate by not having physical hardware because we don't have to deal with stale disks or power outages since it is hosted in the cloud. We had servers in 18 offices that required physical contact to replace a disk or troubleshoot a network connection. We had power issues, air conditioning issues, and network issues as well as having an ISP drop and having a backup ISP drop. I don't even know if I can calculate how much we've been able to save by moving most of that to Azure. Now, we still have outages in Azure, but Azure is way more stable than any physical environment we could build by a long shot. 

I haven't calculated the ROI. We do our internal ROI that looks at what it would cost not to implement Turbonomic. The cost would be poor performance based on infrastructure constraints. We believe it's worth what we pay for it. 

It has some features that help us control costs on the cloud. If we perform the recommendations on sizing, it shows you the difference in cost versus inaction. Turbonomic helps us size machines in the cloud and Kubernetes containers. We can run sizing reports that forecast whether a workload will be cost-effective if we move it to the cloud. 

When we create on-premise machines, the capital expenditure for on-prem equipment is fixed. It doesn't cost us more to be inefficient because we've already bought the hardware. It doesn't matter if I use it 70 percent or 90 percent. If you have an inefficient workload on the cloud, it may cost you a lot more than running it on-premises. You need to fix the application to avoid something stupid like storing data forever. Turbonomic will help us identify an inefficient application so we don't move it to the cloud and find out it costs a trillion dollars to run it.

When I first put the proposal on the table, we put in the proposal that we would get our payback within three years. We got our payback in 15 months. For example, we went through and increased our density, then we were able to delay the purchase of close to 200 servers.

We are very excited about the fact that it does integrate with ServiceNow, our service management ticketing system. It will go out there, and when it says, "I need to add CPU/memory," then it creates the change ticket for us. So, we can have an automated ticket created and get the approvals in place, then it is automatically executed and the ticket is closed off. This saves my team hundreds of actions every year.

When the application starts to see performance degradation, those tickets will go to their queue, but then they will get escalated to me. I can tell you that I have received almost no calls about, "My application is running slow." Before Turbonomic, during the busy season, it seemed like almost every day that I was receiving calls. So, there is definitely a huge drop in, "My performance is running slow," where you would then kind of scramble to find out, "Okay, why is it running slow?"

We use Turbonomic to help optimize our cloud operations and it has reduced our cloud costs. We have been able to identify unattached premium storage, paying for storage that we weren't using. We have also been able to identify instances that were assigned a larger template than was actually needed. So, we were able to then downsize them. This ended up saving us a significant amount of money by rightsizing those instances. 

By increasing our level of density, we have been able to delay hardware purchases. So, we have been able to absorb growth without hardware purchases. Without hardware purchases, we also save money on software licensing.

It has allowed us to deploy where our resources spend their time by focusing on other project or high-value activities with the business. There is less firefighting and more project work.

It helps us gauge our return on investment for the purchase of Turbonomic, based on the overall actions that we've taken and how much money we have saved by taking those actions over a period of time.

In the last year, Turbonomic has reduced our cloud costs by $94,000. It has identified a lot more cost saving areas, but we haven't taken advantage of those.

The amount of tickets that we have had come in for performance issues has surmounted to almost nothing in the calendar year. I don't know what we had before, but now in a calendar year, it is less than 10 to 12 tickets a year for a performance issue.

It has definitely provided a huge benefit in the area of man-hours saved. Without the tool, we would be flying blind on that and would probably be spending a lot of man-hours trying to formulate in-house strategies on how to reduce costs. Our company is a very lean company, in terms of headcount for IT resources as well as cloud skillset awareness. Having a tool like Turbonomic has allowed us to adopt and implement strategies like this, like cost saving measures with the public cloud, probably making us exponentially faster than we could have been without them.

When we had hit on how it ingests the workload performance data to help provide performance-driven analysis or recommendations to provide a recommendation for whether a workload should be scaled up or down, one of the things that has been kind of like a side effect to the ingestion of this data and the business decisions coming out of Turbonomic is it has been helping us identify workloads which are really not being used at all. From identifying those workloads that are not being used, we are able to go through our lifecycle management faster and more efficiently than we would have in the past. We have been able to decommission servers, essentially deleting them from our public cloud and completely reducing the operational cost of that workload altogether. So, it is not just ensuring that the VM is right-sized or locking in a commitment, but identifying that the workload is so low to utilize.

We are able to go back to the business and having a discussion with them based on the utilization of that VM over the course of a period of time for the data that we have, then have the justification and communication with the business to say, "Yeah, it doesn't make sense to have this workload in the environment anymore. Let's delete it." or, "Yeah, it's something that isn't used it all. Let's go ahead and delete it." It is allowing us to identify areas to save cost in those areas, but it's also helping us say, "This workload is costing us this much money. Is it really worth spending this much money every month or so for this solution that is running in the public cloud? Is it generating enough revenue for the business to warrant the run rate? Is the solution providing a service to the business that justifies the operational consumption on a monthly basis?" We are able to have these internal discussions within the business based on the data that Turbonomic is providing. This is a side effect of the product because the product is not providing these decisions and implementing them, but the product is providing us the data to have these discussions and net these decisions as an outcome. Then, this ends up saving money in our public cloud offering.

The optimization with Turbonomic reduced our organization's OPEX.

The open enrollment applications are all mission-critical apps. If they go down, then the clock starts ticking on its way to seven-digit sales losses. It helps us avert situations like this multiple times a week. We are constantly using it to watch and notify application owners. If we don't use Turbonomic for this, then what would typically happen is the node recommendations that they would get from Dynatrace would start showing them that there is latency in their app. If they started digging into Dynatrace, then it would come up, going, "I'm running at 90 percent CPU all the time. I better get some more CPU." Well, Turbonomic tells us two weeks before that happens, that, "We need to be adding CPUs." So, it has a proactive nature. There are a lot of other tools in play that are monitoring what is happening. For our managers, Turbonomic helps us figure out what is going to happen.

We use Turbonomic to help optimize cloud operations, and that has reduced our cloud costs. We have a lot of applications that we run which are very cyclical. Fourth quarter of the year, they get the crap beat out of them. The other three quarters of the year, they are not used a whole lot. Without Turbonomic, would it be appropriate for the application to get resized nine months out of the year. Probably not.

It has helped save cloud costs by seven figures.

The tool itself is not free, but it's easily a positive ROI. It's hard to measure the benefit of just doing the DRS and optimizing our virtual infrastructure. I just can't stress enough how much it does such a better job of stacking VMs onto a set of ESX infrastructure. If you're using Turbonomic and looking at a cluster, you will see pretty much even utilization across a set of hosts. If you let VMware manage it, you will see one host at 95 percent, then another at five percent. Everything is running fine, and that's all they care about. However, if something starts going wrong on the host that is running at 95 percent, then you may see some degradation, just like rats leave the sinking ship trying to get out through that 5 percent host. Because it does a better job of balancing things, it utilizes infrastructure better, so you have fewer servers to host the same amount of VMs.

We have probably reduced our server purchase by a million dollars, just having Turbonomic manage the VDI infrastructure. Before they were static, so they just put an X number of VMs on each host, e.g., there are 70 VMs on that one, then it goes onto the next one. If we saw hotspots, then we would manually try and move a VM or two around.

We are using Turbonomic now to manage that and the supercluster feature that lets us migrate across clusters, which is really key for the VDIs, because we had infrastructure that wasn't well utilized 24 hours a day. So, we were buying lots of extras. The reason for that was we have developers in India, tons of people offshore, and people in the Philippines. As those people come and go, the utilization of different clusters shifts radically. So, if you're trying to have enough infrastructure to manage each cluster individually, then it takes a lot more than if you're managing it as a whole. That is one of the things that we use it for.

We've seen a great return on investment. Then again, I'm not sure how much we initially paid for it anyway, but we went through renegotiation. I don't have the numbers, but we bought some additional licenses, so we just expanded our use a little bit two or three weeks ago. I'd say that we got a good return on our investment, and we're excited about expanding our use in the future too. 

It has reduced our capital and operational expenditures. It's hard to estimate it, but the cloud savings have been significant. I can't give a percentage. However, there have been multiple times when I've applied something, and it has cut a considerable portion of our monthly spending on AWS — over 5 percent. Sometimes it's just a little, but all of those actions add up over time. If I apply a bunch of changes at once, it can add up. I can say we reduced 5 percent of our monthly spending just once, and that was pretty huge for us because we spent a ton on AWS resources. That was one time I can remember, but I'm sure it's been more than that, especially our other teams using it. We've also seen some savings in human resources costs, especially on the other team. They're not dealing with alarms going off all day anymore.

We started to realize value from the solution with our first right-sizing, which was probably between three and six months. At this point, we were able to reclaim resources in our environment that were not utilized.

ROI is not something that I am focused on but in general, I think that we see ROI in several areas. I base this on the improvements that I've seen in regard to application performance.

The ROI would be in the return of hardware, specifically for a lot of the older hardware where we start to go into the converged systems. That is where we are seeing our ROI. We are getting rid of that old, junky hardware, starting to integrate and align things into one specific way of managing all our workloads, but not on old hardware. If anything, the ROI is end of life hardware elimination.

Also, we see ROI in extended support agreements (ESA) for old software. Migration activities seem to be where Turbonomic has really benefited us the most. It's one click and done. We have new machines ready to go with Turbonomic, which are properly sized instead of somebody sitting there with a spreadsheet and guessing. So, my return on investment would certainly be on currency, from a software and hardware perspective.

Turbonomic provides a proactive approach to avoiding performance degradation. Our capacity and performance team use this solution as part of other tools that they utilize.

The solution provides application-driven prioritization, with its AppDynamics integration, to show us how top business applications and transactions are performing. If Turbonomic comes back and tells us, "Hey, this application needs more resources. Or, you're coming up onto a period where it will need more resources. Start planning now." We have certainly used it for that and will continue to use it for that. We have actually used it for troubleshooting a couple of times, saving us 25 percent when it comes to performance-based issues.

We have seen a 25 percent reduction in tickets opened for application issues.

Turbonomic has definitely helped to save human resource time and cost involved in monitoring and optimizing our estate. It has automated a lot of things. We have saved 30 to 35 percent in human resource time and cost, which is pretty substantial. We don't have a big workforce here, so we have to use all the automation we can get.

We have seen a return on investment with IBM Turbonomic.

We have not measured ROI, although application performance has improved because we're not resource-constrained. We're not running into situations where our applications are failing due to a lack of resources, so it's helped us most with uptime and customer experience.

It has definitely helped in terms of CapEx because we've been able to avoid purchasing hardware that we originally thought we needed.

Everybody tells me the pricing is high. But the ROIs are great. Like any software, if it sits on a shelf and no one uses it, it's a waste of money. If you implement it and do the right things before you start using it, the ROI is very fast. And then you can justify the cost, because the ROI is very quick.

We had a couple of hiccups, but we planned for about a nine-month ROI, in the course of a three-year plan. If you put the resources into it and you dedicate the time to it, then ROI is very attainable. If you just let the product churn and tell you what's going on, and don't do anything, then you don't get ROI and don't actually reduce your cloud spend.

We have seen ROI in cost reductions and savings. That directly applies to the cost we pay for Turbonomic licensing.

Our ROI is positive when it comes to the assurance of application performance in your company. It's a benefit for us.

While we are in the process of deploying now, we did a calculation and think that we definitely will be showing value and savings. Our expected ROI is 2:1. 

I do not have hard data to back this up, but I would say that this product has already paid for itself in the reporting that I am able to give to management, as well as automatically moving VM’s to other hosts to better perform without any interaction from my staff.

I'm not able to speak to this. I don't have the financial data to determine a real ROI. I don't believe it's been as high as the sales team initially claimed it would be, but that's at least partly due to our environments. It's not easy to make rightsizing decisions in an environment where applications may not always be running on a box.

We have saved more from cost avoidance on a recent expansion than the product will cost over three years.

I would say we recouped our investment within two months. We were purchasing an average of six or seven hosts per year (at $20K-30K each). Based on the increased awareness of our infrastructure utilization rate, and VMTurbo-driven performance efficiencies, we eliminated the need to buy and deploy any new servers for 18 months.

12 months.

I don't have an exact number, but we have saved lots of time on troubleshooting performance issues.

In the past, we've seen a return, but it's currently hard to justify the recurring cost.

We have been seeing a 4-6 month time window where we have been able to extend before procurement of additional hosts which have been required.

Alongside the additional labor, we save approximately $4500/month.

More of a cost avoidance for us, meaning that it saves us from over-provisioning and allows more density.

We have no ROI so far.

The ROI would mainly be less time troubleshooting performance issues within the various virtual environments. Since we have a mixed environment, any issues that may impact performance appear on one dashboard, regardless of the environment. This saves the team a lot of time.

Not applicable.

It has saved us from buying lots of hardware that we would have bought if it weren't for Turbonomic. The planning/forcasting tool is the most valuable feature. This feature alone will pay for itself because it saves you from purchasing unneeded hardware in the first year alone.

We already had a good return in the first couple of weeks. 

I couldn't give a dollar amount, but this has increased the credibility of our virtual environment.

I have never measured the ROI, but I would expect it to be massive since problem resolutions have decreased significantly.

We keep it because we see ROI. For example, I had an issue recently, which was big, and Turbo helped me solve that problem. If we did not have this solution, it would have been a much bigger issue.

It has reduced our IT-related CapEx and OpEx, because you have a lot of people who complain that they need this and that. Those would be capital expenditures if we're buying more machines, and we really don't need them. So, we can just right-size a VM or an environment, and that pays for the capital and operational expenditures. The automation helps a lot with this as well. This has reduced our expenditures around 10 percent because I haven't bought anything in a while. I haven't needed to buy anything, except for replacements.

It has saved time. Without this application, I would have to do everything myself. That would take at least eight hours a month, because the right-sizing takes a couple hours, then I would have to prepare it.

This year, we have probably saved around £24,000 on new host scaleouts.

For me the ROI is measured in the amount of time I save not searching around for information. Being able to produce reports to show customers why they don't need as much resources as they think, money saved.

The ROI has been unquantifiable. The tools within the product have been great for our administrative team. I recommend the product highly.

Our ROI was less than 12 months as we would otherwise have needed to purchase additional hardware and VMware licenses during that time period, as we were previously adding at least 4 CPUs worth each year.

2 years later we still haven't had to purchase any more, even though we have had a significant increase in the total number of VMs running in the environment.

The break-even point is probably after less than a year. We calculate we will continue to save money year over year by using this product; even more so as we start implementing more features.

Payback on staff hours was 4 months.

I'm not the finance guy, but being able to shrink our host footprint by 66% while increasing our virtualization would seem to me to be very advantageous.

One year.

Capacity planning as been most beneficial, as we are looking to upgrade our virtualization infrastructure and now we have a much clearer picture as to what hardware will be needed. I expect the ROI to be immediate as we save on hardware and virtualization license costs.

I don't have any way to discern a monetary figure on the benefits for using Turbonomic... I would say if anything it offers me the ability to offload monitoring of my virtual environment and focus more on other things. It's freed up a great deal of time I've spent in the past troubleshooting performance issues and manually verifying that VMware was balanced correctly.

While our VM clusters are small anyway, it does let us optimize available resources at a per-VM level and keep the cluster small. We are fairly dense (VM:host ratio) and Turbonomic allows for this.

Our ROI can be measured in the amount of server hardware that we have not had to purchase due to using VMTurbo Operations Manager. By following the recommendations of the product, and placing our VMs as recommended we estimate that we have saved ourselves in the region of $50,000+ NZD by not having to purchase at least one additional VM Host.

I cannot quantify ROI at this time, but can attest to the many hours saved in virtual maintenance and the number of times we've been able to conclusively show optimal performance under given environments.

Not 100% sure.

I don't have numbers at this time for ROI, but I do know that we have been able to utilize our hosts more efficiently, and that's huge.

You could take the number of hours per tech that no longer has to administer and babysit machines and resources, add the money saved by maximizing the hardware you have to its fullest potential, then add the labor saved in forecasting and the product pays for itself in the first year easily!

Our ROI occurred in less than 6 months by allowing us to avoid a costly server upgrade that was planned for parts of our VMware infrastructure.

Organization is not there.

It was within 12 months of deployment. It would have been sooner had we been able to enable all recommendations.

We have been able to decommission some older hardware. We expect more ROI as we continue to right-size our environment.

This has not been calculated.

ROI on this tool was within 3 months. We had over-provisioned on the virtual and physical side after our previous upgrade to the VMware systems. Turbonomic brought our virtual infrastructure back down to size and saved us from upgrading hardware again for over a year.

Capacity planning, migration planning, consolidation of our environment.

As part of the implementation, Turbonomic provided our business with detailed ROI projections based on our "live" Turbonomic data. By now, cost savings, by guided hardware consolidation and freeing up engineering resources, are very favorable, as projected.

That's difficult to comment on. I know its a very valuable product to us, but can't put a dollar value to that.

I typically see a 30%-40% ROI in the first year.

Not quantified.

TBD.

We haven't calculated it, but I can tell you that it's something we've relied on and must have saved us money, if only in time not having to go look for the information this tool provides.

TBD.

Not tracked.

This software enabled me to avoid buying more servers until I really need to buy more.

At this time we have not evaluated that.

I don't have a dollar number handily available, but as mentioned before it has definitely freed up server resources, giving us space back on our hosts.

Price is a little bit steep – if you have a targeted project, then its worth it, otherwise ongoing costs can be a little steep.

Hard to put an exact dollar amount on it, but it did eliminate the need for us to add an additional person in our department as it automated most of the work in our VMware environment.

No comment.

The ROI is still to be measured, but the resources to be recouped are impressive so far.

Less downtime due to small issues becoming big because we didn't see them. Also, the VMs are running at their optimal performance.

Continuous as the workload placement is automatic as things change.

There was no other solution that actually allowed the execution of its recommendations.

The sophistication of the algorithm is sufficient to not cause imbalance by the execution of balancing. Totally sweet.

Not sure.

Seven months

We have easily saved tens of thousands of dollars over the last 2 years by enabling right-sizing and automated workload placement.

ROI will be approximately six months once we receive our license for the full product.

Can be satisfied.

The tool has demonstrated that considerable savings could be had by reducing the amount of physical hardware and, therefore, licenses that are needed.

NA

It helps us keep resources balanced, available, and plan for future purchases.

We have saved money on licensing and availability of our applications.

Good

We achieved an ROI in less than three months.

In precise dollar amounts, unknown. Having said that, Turbonomic has freed up our staff to devote more time to project implementation and expansion, as opposed to manually monitoring our environment.

I do not have access to specific figures however I do see a definite return in the form of administrator time.

ROI is difficult for us to gauge as we are non-profit and specifics are not really tracked.

I can't say. I am an engineer, not in management.

Not calculated yet, but definitively positive, since we recoup a lot of resources.

Less load.

It is hard to count the amount of time it has saved over the years.

We are saving money and time, so it is good.

Hard to put a number on it, but I'd say we use our resources much more efficiently now.

Hard to put in exact numbers, however many hours have been saved each week in optimization and monitoring.

I have not calculated the time saved but would guess its roughly 5-7 hours a week.

ROI was 3 months. Could have been less if we would have acted on the recommendations earlier.

In 9 months.

The return on investment for us has not been on the monetary side. It has been helpful in being able to report better to the executives on the hardware and servers. They are able to see where we need to make improvements.

ROI can sometimes be quite subjective. However, with Turbonomic it’s genuinely evident from the get-go. First, the automation working toward maximum
optimization, efficiency, and uptime. Second, the capacity and future planning capabilities offer the ability to generate the "what-if" scenarios using your own current environment as the model to build on.

N/A

It has saved us from purchasing new hardware in four regional offices and had us extend the service for two years, instead of buying new servers (HPE Gen8 and Gen9 servers running on fifth year). It has easily returned the investment we made in purchasing Turbo.

No exact figure, but the aim is to extend the lifespan of our hypervisor host before adding capacity.

Right sizing our environment saves us money by not having to purchase additional hardware.

The product paid for itself within 30 days.

Within 6 months to 1 year… (helped avoid the immediate need to replace some older test storage).

Enhanced Infra Performance, reduced cost by efficient hardware usage, automation of server workload placements resulting in reduced monitoring cost.

We've saved an entire ESXi host worth of RAM with Turbo.

At this time our largest ROI is not having to spend constant hours watching our VM environment.

Our ROI occurred in less than 6 months by allowing us to avoid a costly server upgrade that was planned for parts of our VMware infrastructure.

Not sure.

The cost was low and we are using it for management not analysis so hard to determine an ROI.

Too early to say, but the planning feature with Turbonomic gives you a fantastic insight on requirements.

Not sure.

We're still working on allowing more automation. Our ROI is constantly improving.

12 months - due to our conservative nature we did not turn on automation at the beginning, and the planning feature was only used during project planning phases.

NA

Not sure, I do not deal with the money aspect.