I have not seen Turbonomic's new pricing since IBM purchased it. When we were looking at it in my previous company before IBM's purchase, it was compatible with other tools.
Infrastructure Engineer at a manufacturing company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2023-02-23T21:52:00Z
Feb 23, 2023
When we first bought Turbonomic, we paid by ESXi host or something like that. We have several hosts with small workloads and a few with high workloads. We negotiated with Turbonomic, but the licensing model prevented us from covering a significant portion of our workload. Later, we got everything covered because they changed their pricing to a per VM model. I believe they modified it when IBM acquired Turbonomic or maybe right before. We could cover all the VMs that weren't included when it was charged by the number of hosts. We use virtualization for fault tolerance and high availability, but we might only have a handful of VMs. The licensing is now straightforward. You have a fee for a certain number of VMs plus maintenance. Everybody's switching to a subscription model these days. I'm an engineer, so I don't care how much anything costs. I only care that it works and doesn't keep me up at night. I'm not involved in purchasing. I don't think there are better, cheaper alternatives, but we review that annually.
Senior Systems Engineer at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
2022-09-21T07:03:00Z
Sep 21, 2022
I don't know the current prices, but I like how the licensing is based on the number of instances instead of sockets, clusters, or cores. We have some VMs that are so heavy I can only fit four on one server. It's not cost-effective if we have to pay more for those. When I move around a VM SQL box with 30 cores and a half-terabyte of RAM, I'm not paying for an entire socket and cores where people assume I have at least 10 or 20 VMs on that socket for that pricing. We're not in the cloud, so we pay per VM. I have the license set at $500. We have around 400 VMs. I don't have to go over the price break at $500 that we got. We're a public institution, so I can't talk about the exact cost, but I can talk about strategy. We discovered that the one VM at $500 was better than getting four plus a couple of 10 packs. It was better for us to go ahead and call 500 in and use that as our leverage to bring the cost down.
Advisory System Engineer at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2022-04-06T17:53:00Z
Apr 6, 2022
In terms of pricing and licensing, I wasn't involved too much in that portion. In terms of the licensing, I would say it's definitely worth the investment. Even initially, if it seems out of range, the cost savings will make up for it.
Licensing costs are middle of the road; you need to take into account what the solution delivers to the customer. If it's running automatic remediation then it saves a lot of money for an organization.
Team Lead, Systems Engineering at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2021-07-15T16:56:00Z
Jul 15, 2021
Pricing is pretty straightforward. We haven't seen any major increases in it. It's a flexible model. There aren't additional costs to the standard license.
Head of Enterprise Wide Technical Architecture / Enterprise Technology Specialist at a healthcare company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2021-03-30T22:26:00Z
Mar 30, 2021
The product is fairly priced right now. Given its capabilities, it is excellently priced. We think that the product will become self-funding because we will be able to maximize our resources, which will help us from a capacity perspective. That should save us money in the long run.
AVP Global Hosting Operations at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-12-29T10:56:00Z
Dec 29, 2020
The pricing and licensing are fair. We purchase based on benchmark pricing, which we have been able to get. There are no surprise charges nor hidden fees.
I know there have been some issues with the billing, when the numbers were first proposed, as to how much we would save. There was a huge miscommunication on our part. Turbonomic was led to believe that we could optimize our AWS footprint, because we didn't know we couldn't. So, we were promised savings of $750,000. Then, when we came to implement Turbonomic, the developers in AWS said, "Absolutely not. You're not putting that in our environment. We can't scale down anything because they coded it." Our AWS environment is a legacy environment. It has all these old applications, where all the developers who have made it are no longer with the company. Those applications generate a ton of money for us. So, if one breaks, we are really in trouble and they didn't want to have to deal with an environment that was changing and couldn't be supported. That number went from $750,000 to about $450,000. However, that wasn't Turbonomic's fault.
Director of Enterprise Server Technology at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2020-12-03T05:52:00Z
Dec 3, 2020
When we have expanded our licensing, it has always been easy to make an ROI-based decision. So, it's reasonably priced. We would like to have it cheaper, but we get more benefit from it than we pay for it. At the end of the day, that's all you can hope for. We paid for our TAM, but I'm sure it's embedded in the cost. However, that's optional. Obviously, you can do it all yourself: Open all your own support tickets and just send in an email to your TAM. Our TAM has access to log in, because she's set up as a contractor for us. So, she can actually get in and work with us.
Server Administrator at a logistics company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2020-12-02T06:24:00Z
Dec 2, 2020
I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive. It would be great if the price of the solution would scale with the amount of money that you are saving in the cloud. If the solution itself cost, say, $300,000 over the course of three years, it should be saving you $750,000 in cloud spend. They should make it worth it. At this point, I don't think there's any built-in tool to show you if the price that you're paying for Turbonomic is worth the cost savings that you're getting from it. Or maybe the licensing and pricing could be done in tiers. If you had 100 virtual machines in the cloud, they would sell you licensing for 100 machines, and then 500, and then 1000. It would help if they did it in tiers so that you're not paying a massive amount of money for Turbonomic as a whole, and not saving as much as you were hoping.
System Engineer at a financial services firm with 201-500 employees
Real User
2020-11-08T07:00:00Z
Nov 8, 2020
If you're a super-small business, it may be a little bit pricey for you. The problem with small businesses is that the owners are super-cheap and they don't want to spend anything unless they absolutely have to. It's really hard to explain this solution to people with that mentality. But you can run more servers on less physical hardware because it will keep things balanced based on your usage patterns. But in large, enterprise companies where money is, maybe, less of an issue, Turbonomic is not that expensive. I can't imagine why any big company would not buy it, for what it does. If you didn't have it and you went out and bought a whole new server, you're talking about spending something like $7,000 with Microsoft for a decent license, and then you're talking about a VMware license as well, which I would venture is in the $5,000 to $7000 range. And memory is so expensive all the time. And another server is going to cost, say, $10,000 to $15,000. If you do that twice over a couple of years, Turbonomic will have paid for itself. And that's not to mention the fact that it's also made things so much better for you because it has kept the system stable. I don't think Turbonomic is expensive, in that sense. I put in a lot of expense and time in the very beginning, because I was trying to learn it. But if you're smart, you'll look back and see how well it's managing your systems now and you'll feel like a fool that you went out and bought all that new hardware in the past, because you probably could have gotten away without it. If you're truly maximizing your systems, the way that Turbonomic does, you can get away with less hardware with the same infrastructure because it's maximizing the hardware better. And that keeps your licensing costs down.
Server\Storage Administrator at Charlotte Pipe and Foundry
Real User
2017-06-20T18:24:00Z
Jun 20, 2017
The pricing is fairly straightforward. It is based on the number of physical CPUs. There is now an option for per VM pricing. This can be valuable if you are monitoring VM's in a Cloud environment.
IBM Turbonomic is a performance and cost optimization platform for public, private, and hybrid clouds used by customers to assure application performance while eliminating inefficiencies by dynamically resourcing applications through automated actions. Common use cases include cloud cost optimization, cloud migration planning, data center modernization, FinOps acceleration, Kubernetes optimization, sustainable IT, and application resource management. Turbonomic customers...
I have not seen Turbonomic's new pricing since IBM purchased it. When we were looking at it in my previous company before IBM's purchase, it was compatible with other tools.
I consider the pricing to be high.
When we first bought Turbonomic, we paid by ESXi host or something like that. We have several hosts with small workloads and a few with high workloads. We negotiated with Turbonomic, but the licensing model prevented us from covering a significant portion of our workload. Later, we got everything covered because they changed their pricing to a per VM model. I believe they modified it when IBM acquired Turbonomic or maybe right before. We could cover all the VMs that weren't included when it was charged by the number of hosts. We use virtualization for fault tolerance and high availability, but we might only have a handful of VMs. The licensing is now straightforward. You have a fee for a certain number of VMs plus maintenance. Everybody's switching to a subscription model these days. I'm an engineer, so I don't care how much anything costs. I only care that it works and doesn't keep me up at night. I'm not involved in purchasing. I don't think there are better, cheaper alternatives, but we review that annually.
I don't know the current prices, but I like how the licensing is based on the number of instances instead of sockets, clusters, or cores. We have some VMs that are so heavy I can only fit four on one server. It's not cost-effective if we have to pay more for those. When I move around a VM SQL box with 30 cores and a half-terabyte of RAM, I'm not paying for an entire socket and cores where people assume I have at least 10 or 20 VMs on that socket for that pricing. We're not in the cloud, so we pay per VM. I have the license set at $500. We have around 400 VMs. I don't have to go over the price break at $500 that we got. We're a public institution, so I can't talk about the exact cost, but I can talk about strategy. We discovered that the one VM at $500 was better than getting four plus a couple of 10 packs. It was better for us to go ahead and call 500 in and use that as our leverage to bring the cost down.
In terms of pricing and licensing, I wasn't involved too much in that portion. In terms of the licensing, I would say it's definitely worth the investment. Even initially, if it seems out of range, the cost savings will make up for it.
Licensing costs are middle of the road; you need to take into account what the solution delivers to the customer. If it's running automatic remediation then it saves a lot of money for an organization.
Pricing is pretty straightforward. We haven't seen any major increases in it. It's a flexible model. There aren't additional costs to the standard license.
The product is fairly priced right now. Given its capabilities, it is excellently priced. We think that the product will become self-funding because we will be able to maximize our resources, which will help us from a capacity perspective. That should save us money in the long run.
The pricing and licensing are fair. We purchase based on benchmark pricing, which we have been able to get. There are no surprise charges nor hidden fees.
It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive.
I know there have been some issues with the billing, when the numbers were first proposed, as to how much we would save. There was a huge miscommunication on our part. Turbonomic was led to believe that we could optimize our AWS footprint, because we didn't know we couldn't. So, we were promised savings of $750,000. Then, when we came to implement Turbonomic, the developers in AWS said, "Absolutely not. You're not putting that in our environment. We can't scale down anything because they coded it." Our AWS environment is a legacy environment. It has all these old applications, where all the developers who have made it are no longer with the company. Those applications generate a ton of money for us. So, if one breaks, we are really in trouble and they didn't want to have to deal with an environment that was changing and couldn't be supported. That number went from $750,000 to about $450,000. However, that wasn't Turbonomic's fault.
When we have expanded our licensing, it has always been easy to make an ROI-based decision. So, it's reasonably priced. We would like to have it cheaper, but we get more benefit from it than we pay for it. At the end of the day, that's all you can hope for. We paid for our TAM, but I'm sure it's embedded in the cost. However, that's optional. Obviously, you can do it all yourself: Open all your own support tickets and just send in an email to your TAM. Our TAM has access to log in, because she's set up as a contractor for us. So, she can actually get in and work with us.
I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive. It would be great if the price of the solution would scale with the amount of money that you are saving in the cloud. If the solution itself cost, say, $300,000 over the course of three years, it should be saving you $750,000 in cloud spend. They should make it worth it. At this point, I don't think there's any built-in tool to show you if the price that you're paying for Turbonomic is worth the cost savings that you're getting from it. Or maybe the licensing and pricing could be done in tiers. If you had 100 virtual machines in the cloud, they would sell you licensing for 100 machines, and then 500, and then 1000. It would help if they did it in tiers so that you're not paying a massive amount of money for Turbonomic as a whole, and not saving as much as you were hoping.
If you're a super-small business, it may be a little bit pricey for you. The problem with small businesses is that the owners are super-cheap and they don't want to spend anything unless they absolutely have to. It's really hard to explain this solution to people with that mentality. But you can run more servers on less physical hardware because it will keep things balanced based on your usage patterns. But in large, enterprise companies where money is, maybe, less of an issue, Turbonomic is not that expensive. I can't imagine why any big company would not buy it, for what it does. If you didn't have it and you went out and bought a whole new server, you're talking about spending something like $7,000 with Microsoft for a decent license, and then you're talking about a VMware license as well, which I would venture is in the $5,000 to $7000 range. And memory is so expensive all the time. And another server is going to cost, say, $10,000 to $15,000. If you do that twice over a couple of years, Turbonomic will have paid for itself. And that's not to mention the fact that it's also made things so much better for you because it has kept the system stable. I don't think Turbonomic is expensive, in that sense. I put in a lot of expense and time in the very beginning, because I was trying to learn it. But if you're smart, you'll look back and see how well it's managing your systems now and you'll feel like a fool that you went out and bought all that new hardware in the past, because you probably could have gotten away without it. If you're truly maximizing your systems, the way that Turbonomic does, you can get away with less hardware with the same infrastructure because it's maximizing the hardware better. And that keeps your licensing costs down.
Make sure you do a POC first so you can see the benefit this product will bring.
Contact Sales about pricing and licensing as they will work with you on the best solution.
The pricing is fairly straightforward. It is based on the number of physical CPUs. There is now an option for per VM pricing. This can be valuable if you are monitoring VM's in a Cloud environment.