IBM Turbonomic vs Red Hat CloudForms comparison

IBM and Red Hat are both solutions in the Cloud Management category. IBM is ranked #4 with an average rating of 9.1, while Red Hat is ranked #35. IBM holds a 4.0% mindshare in CM, compared to Red Hat’s 1.8% mindshare. Additionally, 98% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 66% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

IBM Turbonomic

Read 205 IBM Turbonomic reviews

7,181 Views
3,662 Comparison Views

98% willing to recommend

Red Hat CloudForms

Read 10 Red Hat CloudForms reviews

955 Views
945 Comparison Views

66% willing to recommend

IBM Turbonomic

Red Hat CloudForms

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

IBM Turbonomic and Red Hat CloudForms compete in the IT infrastructure management category. IBM Turbonomic seems to have the upper hand due to its advanced automation and planning tools, leading to a notable ROI as cited by users.

Features: IBM Turbonomic offers advanced automation, workload placement, and resource optimization, with users valuing its capabilities in VM rightsizing and scenario planning. It also provides resource balancing and comprehensive reporting functions, instrumental in managing virtual environments efficiently. Red Hat CloudForms is recognized for its integration capabilities with open-source tools and managing diverse infrastructures. However, it lacks the automation depth seen in Turbonomic, making it less appealing in terms of automation capabilities.

Room for Improvement: IBM Turbonomic users want improved UI design and enhanced reporting functionalities, citing its current UI as complex and a desire for better third-party tool integration. Red Hat CloudForms users mention its configuration complexity, emphasizing a need for ease of use and more favorable pricing models. Compatibility issues with updates and a demand for more robust report customization options have been highlighted.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM Turbonomic is noted for its ease of deployment across diverse environments like on-premises and private clouds. Users frequently praise its customer service and technical support for being responsive and knowledgeable. Red Hat CloudForms is seen as more complex to deploy, requiring extensive customization and programming. Although it offers attentive customer service, users face challenges with its technical support due to configuration complexities.

Pricing and ROI: IBM Turbonomic is perceived as competitively priced, offering flexible licensing options that contribute to quick ROI realization. Customers report significant operational savings and automation benefits, justifying its cost. Conversely, Red Hat CloudForms is regarded as expensive, especially concerning its subscription model and additional server license requirements. While some users report positive ROI, the higher upfront costs and complexity make it less attractive compared to the straightforward value proposition of IBM Turbonomic.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Turbonomic vs. Red Hat CloudForms Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Turbonomic vs. Red Hat CloudForms

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 882,744 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

IBM Turbonomic

Ranking in Cloud Management

4th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

205

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Migration (3rd), Virtualization Management Tools (4th), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (5th), Cloud Analytics (1st), Cloud Cost Management (1st), AIOps (11th)

Red Hat CloudForms

Ranking in Cloud Management

35th

Average Rating

6.4

Reviews Sentiment

5.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Cloud Management category, the mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 4.0%, down from 5.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat CloudForms is 1.8%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Cloud Management Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
IBM Turbonomic	4.0%
Red Hat CloudForms	1.8%
Other	94.2%

Cloud Management

Featured Reviews

reviewer1446966

Senior Systems Engineer at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees

The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them

The management interface seems to be designed for high-resolution screens. Somebody with a smaller-resolution screen might not like the web interface. I run a 4K monitor on it, so everything fits on the screen. With a lower resolution like 1080, you need to scroll a lot. Everything is in smaller windows. It doesn't seem to be designed for smaller screens. When I change the resolution to 1080, I only see half of what I would on my big 4K monitor. It would be annoying to have to scroll to see the flow chart. They have a flow chart that goes top to bottom like a tree. On a lower resolution, it might be nice if that scrolls horizontally because it's long, narrow, and tall. It's only three icons wide, but it's 15 icons tall. I think it would be helpful to have the ability to change that for a smaller screen and customize the widget.

Read full review

Ilhami Arikan

Cloud Services Automation Technologies Manager at Garanti Teknoloji

A stable solution that helps to provision servers

We use the solution to provision servers. I am impressed with the product's ability to create dynamic catalogs. The solution's provisioning engine needs to be improved. I would rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten. I would rate the product's scalability a seven out of ten and…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"In our organization, optimizing application performance is a continuous process that is beyond human scale. We would not be able to do the number of actions that Turbonomic takes on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. It is humanly impossible with the little micro adjustments that it can make. That is a huge differentiator. If you just figure each action could take anywhere very conservatively from five to 10 minutes to act upon, then you multiply that out by thousands of actions every month, it is easily something where you could say, "I am saving a couple of FTEs.""

"It also brings up a list of machines and if something is under-provisioned and needs more compute power it will tell you, 'This server needs more compute power, and we suggest you raise it up to this level.' It will even automatically do it for you. In Azure, you don't have to actually go into the cloud provider to resize. You can just say, 'Apply these resizes,' and Turbonomic uses some back-end APIs to make the changes for you."

"The notifications saying, "This is a corrective action," even though some of them can be automated, are always welcome to see. They summarize your entire infrastructure and how you can better utilize it. That is the biggest feature."

"Rightsizing is valuable. Its recommendations are pretty good."

"We can manage multiple environments using a single pane of glass, which is something that I really like."

"We have VM placement in Automated mode and currently have all other metrics in Recommend mode."

"We have a system where our developers automate machine builds, and that is constantly running out of resources. Turbonomic helps us with that, so I don't have to keep buying hardware. The developers always say, "They don't have enough. They don't have enough. They don't have enough," when they just configured it improperly. Therefore, Turbonomic helps us identify configuration issues on their side so it doesn't cost me money on the other end to buy resources that I don't really need."

"The ability to monitor and automate both the right-sizing of VMs as well as to automate the vMotion of VMs across ESXi hosts."

More IBM Turbonomic pros

"The optimization of the solution is quite interesting."

"They are a very mature product."

"I am impressed with the product's ability to create dynamic catalogs."

"The multi-tenancy feature has been very helpful for our clients. It has been working fine and seamlessly for them. Its interface is also very simplified, and it is also an open and easy-to-scale solution."

"The stability of the solution is very good. We haven't had any issues with it."

"I am impressed with the product's reports."

"The most valuable features of Red Hat CloudForms are the benefit of the collective functionality."

"Red Hat CloudForms is stable once it is up and running."

More Red Hat CloudForms pros

Cons

"They could add a few more reports. They could also be a bit more granular. While they have reports, sometimes it is hard to figure out what you are looking for just by looking at the date."

"The implementation could be enhanced."

"Recovering resources when they're not needed is not as optimized as it could be."

"Turbonomic can modernize the look and feel, making it more user-friendly to access and obtain information."

"Enhanced executive reporting standard with the tool beyond the reports that can be created today. Something that can easily be used with upper management on a monthly or quarterly basis to show the impact to our environment."

"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 planning and costing areas could be a little bit more detailed. When you have more than 2,000 machines, the reports don't work properly. They need to fix it so that the reports work when you use that many virtual machines."

"Additional interfaces would be helpful."

More IBM Turbonomic cons

"The problem is that the platform requires it to be maintained and updated. Also, a few cases are still pending with the Red Hat support team since they are not closed yet."

"Red Hat CloudForms could improve by allowing more customization of reports. We have to do a lot of coding to accomplish what we want. Additionally, the compatibility with the multi-cloud could improve. The latter versions of the solution removed Google support and the cost comparison between other clouds was high."

"The solution's provisioning engine needs to be improved."

"The complexity of the solution is a bit high in comparison to VMware."

"All of the areas of Red Hat CloudForms could improve. It doesn't do half of the things that it says it can do out of the box. It takes configuration to make any of it work, which is not uncommon for solutions similar to this. However, it is frustrating."

"I have issues with the solution's permissions. Unlike VMware, the product doesn't allow folder-type permissions."

"Because the solution needs to integrate with other products that surround it, there is a lot of configuration required, and this can be quite complex. It's not as easy as it is with, for example, VMware."

"The solution is still quite immature."

More Red Hat CloudForms cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We felt the pricing was very fair for the product. It is in no way prohibitive for larger deployments, unlike other similar product on the market."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive."

"I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive."

"It was an annual buy-in. You basically purchase it based on your host type stuff. The buy-in was about 20K, and the annual maintenance is about $3,000 a year."

"You should understand the cost of your physical servers and how much time and money you are spending year over year on expanding your virtual farm."

More IBM Turbonomic pricing and cost advice

"It is definitely cheaper than VMware. Everything is included. There is no challenge there."

"The product's licensing is based on the number of servers."

"The price of Red Hat CloudForms was not competitive, it was expensive."

"Red Hat CloudForms is a bit expensive."

"Red Hat CloudForms has a subscript-based pricing model. The cost is approximately $20,000 annually which allows you to use as many users as you want."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Management solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

882,744 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Manufacturing Company

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

15%

Computer Software Company

14%

Marketing Services Firm

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	41
Midsize Enterprise	57
Large Enterprise	147

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Large Enterprise	7

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Turbonomic?

It offers different scenarios. It provides more capabilities than many other tools available. Typically, its price is set as a percentage of the consumption of some of our customers' services. The ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Turbonomic?

The implementation could be enhanced.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Turbonomic?

We use IBM Turbonomic to automate our cloud operations, including monitoring, consolidating dashboards, and reporting. This helps us get a consolidated view of all customer spending into a single d...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

VMware Aria Operations vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 7% of the time

Densify vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 7% of the time

Spot by Flexera vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 4% of the time

IBM Kubecost vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 4% of the time

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 3% of the time

More IBM Turbonomic Competitors

VMware Aria Automation vs Red Hat CloudForms

Compared 8% of the time

VMware Aria Operations vs Red Hat CloudForms

Compared 7% of the time

VMware Cloud Director vs Red Hat CloudForms

Compared 7% of the time

CloudStack vs Red Hat CloudForms

Compared 6% of the time

OpenNebula vs Red Hat CloudForms

Compared 5% of the time

More Red Hat CloudForms Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Turbonomic

February 2026

Download IBM Turbonomic product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat CloudForms

February 2026

Download Red Hat CloudForms product report

Also Known As

Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager

No data available

Interactive Demo

IBM

Demo not available

Red Hat

Overview

IBM Turbonomic enhances IT efficiency with automation, capacity planning, and reporting features, enabling organizations to optimize resource utilization and improve performance through advanced workload management and scenario analysis.

IBM Turbonomic equips organizations with robust capabilities for dynamic resource allocation and informed decision-making. Its planning module provides scenario analysis, right-sizing recommendations, and a customizable dashboard for tailored insights. Automation features improve workload placements and resource efficiency, while forecasting capabilities enhance performance. Simulation of environments helps in decision-making, leading to significant savings in cloud and hardware management. There is a need for a more intuitive interface, enhanced navigation, and improved customization in reporting with integration potential with third-party applications. Transition to the HTML5 interface and stronger training resources are among anticipated improvements.

What are the key features of IBM Turbonomic?

Automation: Automates workload placement and dynamic resource allocation to boost efficiency.
Capacity Planning: Provides scenario analysis and right-sizing for optimal resource use.
Customizable Dashboard: Offers tailored insights for organization needs.
Forecasting: Enhances decision-making through resource-use predictions.
Simulation Capabilities: Aids in assessing savings and performance gains.

What benefits and ROI should be evaluated?

Cost Optimization: Reduces spending on cloud and hardware resources.
Enhanced Performance: Promotes consistent application performance and resource efficiency.
Improved Decision-Making: Supports informed choices with scenario simulation.
Flexibility and Scalability: Assists with workload migrations and resource management across environments.

IBMTurbonomic is implemented across industries such as cloud management and virtualization, helping organizations balance clusters, optimize virtual machine performance, and manage Azure configurations. In resource-monitored environments like VMware and XenServer, its features facilitate load balancing, VM rightsizing, and automation shutoffs. Industries can rely on its insights for cost-saving measures, ensuring efficient resource allocation for hybrid and cloud environments.

IBM

Manage container, virtual, private, and public cloud infrastructures

Managing a complex, hybrid IT environment can require multiple management tools, redundant policy implementations, and extra staff to handle the operations. Red Hat® CloudForms simplifies IT, providing unified management and operations in a hybrid environment.

As your IT infrastructure progresses from traditional virtualization toward an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) model, CloudForms evolves, protecting your investments and providing consistent user experience and functionality.

Red Hat

Sample Customers

IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.

Cox Automotive, Penn State, FICO, G-ABLE, Seneca College, ITandTEL, The Paris Lodron University of Salzburg (PLUS), MyRepublic, Macquarie, The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, CBTS, Network Data Solutions (NDS)

Buyer's Guide

IBM Turbonomic vs. Red Hat CloudForms

February 2026

Free Report: IBM Turbonomic vs. Red Hat CloudForms

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Turbonomic vs. Red Hat CloudForms and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

882,744 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Turbonomic vs. Red Hat CloudForms 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.