We performed a comparison between CloudCheckr and IBM Turbonomic 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 initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution is mostly stable."
"The solution is scalable for our purposes."
"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 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 feature for optimizing VMs is the most valuable because a number of the agencies have workloads or VMs that are not really being used. Turbonomic enables us to say, 'If you combine these, or if you decide to go with a reserve instance, you will save this much.'"
"The ability to monitor and automate both the right-sizing of VMs as well as to automate the vMotion of VMs across ESXi hosts."
"The most important feature to us is an objective measurement of VM headroom per cluster. In addition, the ability to check for the right-sizing of VMs."
"Using this product helps us to reduce performance risk because it shows us where resources are needed but not yet allocated."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the cluster utilization reports and the resource capacity planning. We can simulate how much capacity we can add to the current resources. The individual DM reports and VM-facing recommendations report are also helpful."
"The solution has a good optimization feature."
"We've saved hundreds of hours. Most of the time those hours would have to be after hours as well, which are more valuable to me as that's my personal time."
"The solution needs to work better with larger capacities of data."
"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."
"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."
"The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."
"The performance of the tool really needs to be improved."
"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."
"Self-healing could be a bit smoother and a bit cleaner, easier to access and more functional. That would help."
"The solution must improve its user interface."
"I would love to see Turbonomic analyze backup data. We have had people in the past put servers into daily full backups with seven-year retention and where the disk size is two terabytes. So, every single day, there is a two terabyte snapshot put into a Blob somewhere. I would love to see Turbonomic say, "Here are all your backups along with the age of them," to help us manage the savings by not having us spend so much on the storage in Azure. That would be huge."
"It can be more agnostic in terms of the solutions that it provides. It can include some other cost-saving methods for the public cloud and SaaS applications as well."
"The GUI and policy creation have room for improvement. There should be a better view of some of the numbers that are provided and easier to access. And policy creation should have it easier to identify groups."
"The automation area could be improved, and the generic reports are poor. We want more details in the analysis report from the application layer. The reports from the infrastructure layer are satisfactory, but Turbonomic won't provide much information if we dig down further than the application layer."
"The reporting needs to be improved. It's important for us to know and be able to look back on what happened and why certain decisions were made, and we want to use a custom report for this."
"If they would educate their customers to understand the latest updates, that would help customers... Also, there are a lot of features that are not available in Turbonomic. For example, PaaS component optimization and automation are still in the development phase."
"The one point is the reporting. We do have reports out of it, but they're not the level of graphical detail I would like."
"Recovering resources when they're not needed is not as optimized as it could be."
CloudCheckr is ranked 24th in Cloud Management with 8 reviews while IBM Turbonomic is ranked 4th in Cloud Management with 204 reviews. CloudCheckr is rated 7.6, while IBM Turbonomic is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of CloudCheckr writes "Beneficial granular reporting, highly stable, and excellent support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Turbonomic writes "The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them ". CloudCheckr is most compared with Azure Cost Management, Apptio One, Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks and AWS Trusted Advisor, whereas IBM Turbonomic is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, Azure Cost Management, Cisco Intersight, VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth and VMware vSphere. See our CloudCheckr vs. IBM Turbonomic report.
See our list of best Cloud Management vendors and best Cloud Cost 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.
