Azure Cost Management vs CloudCheckr comparison

Microsoft and Spot by NetApp are both solutions in the Cloud Cost Management category. Microsoft is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.1, while Spot by NetApp is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.0. Microsoft holds a 11.5% mindshare in CCM, compared to Spot by NetApp’s 4.5% mindshare. Additionally, 86% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 66% of Spot by NetApp users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 2, 2025

Azure Cost Management and CloudCheckr both compete in the cloud cost optimization category. While Azure Cost Management is tightly integrated with the Azure ecosystem, CloudCheckr is preferred for its multi-cloud capabilities and extensive reporting tools.

Features: Azure Cost Management offers native integration with predictive cost analysis, budget alerts, and real-time consumption insights, and it is free for Azure subscribers with a comprehensive dashboard for cost management. CloudCheckr features extensive granular reporting, ease of use across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud, providing detailed analysis and compliance checks.

Room for Improvement: Azure Cost Management can improve in areas such as self-healing capabilities, better multi-cloud integration, and automated reporting. CloudCheckr users seek better integration with Azure and Google Cloud, faster large data processing, and enhanced security compliance reporting.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Azure Cost Management is easily deployed within Azure environments with generally effective support, though response times vary. CloudCheckr supports public clouds with comprehensive documentation, though its integration with Azure and GCP could be smoother.

Pricing and ROI: Azure Cost Management is cost-effective as it's free for Azure users, aiding in expenditure reduction and offering positive ROI. CloudCheckr requires usage-based licensing, offering significant ROI through multi-cloud expense visibility.

To learn more, read our detailed Azure Cost Management vs. CloudCheckr Report (Updated: January 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Azure Cost Management vs. CloudCheckr

January 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 831,265 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

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 16.8%, up from 14.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure Cost Management is 11.5%, down from 14.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of CloudCheckr is 4.5%, up from 3.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Cloud Cost Management

Featured Reviews

Keldric Emery

Advisory System Engineer at a insurance company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Saves time and costs while reducing performance degradation

It's been a very good solution. The reporting has been very, very valuable as, with a very large environment, it's very hard to get your hands on the environment. Turbonomic does that work for you and really shows you where some of the cost savings can be done. It also helps you with the reporting side. Me being able to see that this machine hasn't been used for a very long time, or seeing that a machine is overused and that it might need more RAM or CPU, et cetera, helps me understand my infrastructure. The cost savings are drastic in the cloud feature in Azure and in AWS. In some of those other areas, I'm able to see what we're using, what we're not using, and how we can change to better fit what we have. It gives us the ability for applications and teams to see the hardware and how it's being used versus how they've been told it's being used. The reporting really helps with that. It shows which application is really using how many resources or the least amount of resources. Some of the gaps between an infrastructure person like myself and an application are filled. It allows us to come to terms by seeing the raw data. This aspect is very important. In the past, it was me saying "I don't think that this application is using that many resources" or "I think this needs more resources." I now have concrete evidence as well as reporting and some different analytics that I can show. It gives me the evidence that I would need to show my application owners proof of what I'm talking about. In terms of the downtime, meantime, and resolution that Turbonomic has been able to show in reports, it has given me an idea of things before things happen. That is important as I would really like to see a machine that needs resources, and get resources to it before we have a problem where we have contention and aspects of that nature. It's been helpful in that regard. Turbonomic has helped us understand where performance risks exist. Turbonomic looks at my environment and at the servers and even at the different hosts and how they're handling traffic and the number of machines that are on them. I can analyze it and it can show me which server or which host needs resources, CPU, or RAM. Even in Azure, in the cloud, I'm able to see which resources are not being used to full capacity and understand where I could scale down some in order to save cost. It is very, very helpful in assessing performance risk by navigating underlying causes and actions. The reason why it's helpful is because if there's a machine that's overrunning the CPU, I can run reports every week to get an idea of machines that would need CPU, RAM, or additional resources. Those resources could be added by Turbonomic - not so much by me - on a scheduled basis. I personally don't have to do it. It actually gives me a little bit of my life back. It helps me to get resources added without me physically having to touch each and every resource myself. Turbonomic has helped to reduce performance degradation in the same way as it's able to see the resources and see what it needs and add them before a problem occurs. It follows the trends. It sees the trends of what's happening and it's able to add or take away those resources. For example, we discuss when we need to do certain disaster recovery tests. Over the years, Turbo will be able to see, for example, around this time of year that certain people ramp up certain resources in an environment, and then it will add the resources as required. Another time of year, it will realize these resources are not being used as much, and it takes those resources away. In this way, it saves money and time while letting us know where we are. We've saved a great deal of time using this product when I consider how I'd have to multiply myself and people like me who would have to add resources to devices or take resources away. 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. Those saved hours are across months, not years. I would consider the number of resources that Turbonomic is adding and taking away and the placement (if I had to do it all myself) would end up being hundreds of hours monthly that would be added without the help of Turbonomic. It helps us to meet SLAs mainly due to the fact that we're able to keep the servers going and to keep the servers in an environment, to keep them to where (if we need to add resources) we can add them at any given time. It will keep our SLAs where they need to be. If we were to have downtime due to the fact that we had to add resources or take resources away and it was an emergency, then that would prevent us from meeting our SLAs. We also use it to monitor Azure and to monitor our machines in terms of the resources that are out there and the cost involved. In a lot of cases, it does a better job of giving us cost information than Azure itself does. We're able to see the cost per machine. We're able to see the unattached volume and storage that we are paying for. It gives us a great level of insight. Turbonomic gives us the time to be able to focus on innovation and ongoing modernization. Some of the tasks that it does are tasks that I would not necessarily have to do. It's very helpful in that I know that the resources are there where they need to be and it gives me an idea of what changes need to be made or what suggestions it's making. Even if I don't take them, I'm able to get a good idea of some best practices through Turbonomic. One of the ways that Turbonomic does to help bring new resources to market is that we are now able to see the resources (or at least monitor the resources) before they get out to the general public within our environment. We saw immediate value from the product in the test environment. We set it up in a small test environment and we started with just placement and we could tell that the placement was being handled more efficiently than what VMware was doing. There was value for us in placement alone. Then, after we left the placement, we began to look at the resources and there were resources. We immediately began to see a change in the environment. It has made the application and performance better, mainly due to the fact that we are able to give resources and take resources away based on what the need is. Our expenses, definitely, have been in a better place based on the savings that we've been able to make in the cloud and on-prem. Turbonomic has been very helpful in that regard. We've been able to see the savings easily based on the reports in Turbonomic. That, and just seeing the machines that are not being used to capacity allows us to set everything up so it runs a bit more efficiently.

Read full review

Joy Maitra

Sr. Technical Architect at Hexaware Technologies Limited

Continuous monitoring and predictive analytics help provide insights into utilization

Continuous monitoring helps me detect anomalies in the pipeline, preplan resource scalability, and assist with cost management by offering good visibility into resource utilization. It also offers predictive analytics and some existing features, including dashboards. The AI prediction feature helps forecast based on current utilization trends and suggests improvements like the GenAI feature for interactive inquiries.

Read full review

Nigel Mullings

Enterprise Cloud Architect at Peritem Consultants Ltd

Beneficial granular reporting, highly stable, and excellent support

I have worked in the cost-management tools from many cloud providers, such as Amazon AWS, Google Cloud Services, and Azure. CloudCheckr CMx High Security has a lot more detail than the native cloud service cost-management tools. If you want an enterprise-grade solution, CloudCheckr CMx High Security would be a good fit. If you want something simple, out of the box, then you can use the cloud service's native tools.

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

"I have the ability to automate things similar to the Orchestrator stuff. I do have the ability to have it do some balancing, and if it sees some different performance metrics that I've set not being met, it'll actually move some of my virtual machines from, let's say, one host to another. It is sort of an automation tool that helps me. Basically, I specify the metric, and if I get a certain host or something being over-utilized, it'll automatically move the virtual machines around for me. It basically has to snap into my vCenter and then it can make adjustments and move my virtual machines around. It also has some very nice reporting tools built around virtual machines. It tells you how much storage, memory, or CPU is being used monthly, and then it gives you a very nice way to be able to send out billing structure to your end users who use servers within your environment."

"Turbonomic helps us right-size virtual machines to utilize the available infrastructure components available and suggest where resources should exist. We also use the predictive tool to forecast what will happen when we add additional compute-demanding virtual machines or something to the environment. It shows us how that would impact existing resources. All of that frees up time that would otherwise be spent on manual calculation."

"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."

"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.""

"Before implementing Turbonomic, we had difficulty reaching a consensus about VM placement and sizing. Everybody's opinion was wrong, including mine. The application developers, implementers, and infrastructure team could never decide the appropriate size of a virtual machine. I always made the machines small, and they always made them too big. We were both probably wrong."

"It became obvious to us that there was a lot more being offered in the product that we could leverage to ensure our VMware environment was running efficiently."

"The automated memory balancing, where it looks at whether it's being used in the most efficient way and adds or takes away memory, is the best part. If it didn't do that, it would be something that I would have to do. We have too many machines for one person to do that. The automation helps me in that it is done in a really efficient way and a balanced way because of the policies. It really helps."

More IBM Turbonomic pros

"The most valuable feature of Azure Cost Management is its way of segregating accounts based on resources."

"It is a fully scalable product with the potential to enhance our application and increase our servers. All cloud-based solutions are fully scalable."

"We don't actually use the Azure Cost Management features. We have our own capabilities. We put our own technology on top of Azure as Azure doesn't deliver a really good cost optimization, so our customers come to us to enhance what they're potentially doing inside their Azure platform."

"What I like the most about Azure Cost Management is that it's similar to a native service, and it has very well-defined product features, particularly if a customer is moving to Azure, then it gives proper insight in terms of compatibility and what benefits a customer can get from the solution."

"Microsoft's technical support is good."

"The most valuable feature is that our customers can see their consumption in real time. Even though we have a couple of analytics provided by our company, those are not in real time."

"The most valuable aspect of Azure Cost Management for me is the cost-saving recommendations based on our usage patterns."

"The solution helps us diagnose and understand why some resources cost more so that we can fine-tune and reduce the cost."

More Azure Cost Management pros

"The initial setup is straightforward."

"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."

"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."

"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 solution is scalable for our purposes."

"The solution is mostly stable."

Cons

"While the product is fairly intuitive and easy to use once you learn it, it can be quite daunting until you have undergone a bit of training."

"It would be good for Turbonomic, on their side, to integrate with other companies like AppDynamics or SolarWinds or other monitoring softwares. I feel that the actual monitoring of applications, mixed in with their abilities, would help. That would be the case wherever Turbonomic lacks the ability to monitor an application or in cases where applications are so customized that it's not going to be able to handle them. There is monitoring that you can do with scripting that you may not be able to do with Turbonomic."

"I do not like Turbonomic's new licensing model. The previous model was pretty straightforward, whereas the new model incorporates what most of the vendors are doing now with cores and utilization. Our pricing under the new model will go up quite a bit. Before, it was pretty straightforward, easy to understand, and reasonable."

"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."

"I like the detail I get in the old user interface and will miss some of that in the new interface when we perform our planned upgrade soon."

"There is an opportunity for improvement with some of Turbonomic's permissions internally for role-based access control. We would like the ability to come up with some customized permissions or scope permissions a bit differently than the product provides."

"Before IBM bought it, the support was fantastic. After IBM bought it, the support became very disappointing."

"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."

More IBM Turbonomic cons

"I would like the developers to add more features about migration, like how much it would cost to migrate from, let's say, AWS to Azure."

"The forecasting model can improve Azure Cost Management."

"There are certainly areas for improvement in terms of labeling the inventory. That's because right now, we use a number of services. But it's difficult when you look at the billing limiters and how they are named. We can't correlate those names to the actual services there. So, I can't click on an item and see if I'm still using this service or not. So it just rolls up and gives me values and figures, but I can't really correlate them to actual services on the Azure platform."

"Cost Management could always provide more details. The more information, the better. They just need to build on what they have now."

"I would like to see better customization."

"I haven't detected anything that needs improvement, but any solution could be improved."

"The maintenance of the product by Azure's support team is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."

"The product's foecasting needs improvement."

More Azure Cost Management cons

"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 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."

"The reporting and analytic capabilities are very limited."

"Self-healing could be a bit smoother and a bit cleaner, easier to access and more functional. That would help."

"Many features still need to be implemented in this tool."

"The performance of the tool really needs to be improved."

"The solution must improve its user interface."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Price is a big one. VMTurbo was very competitively priced."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Everybody tells me the pricing is high. But the ROIs are great."

"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."

"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."

"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."

More IBM Turbonomic pricing and cost advice

"Azure Cost Management is a free cost management tool."

"I rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten - the price could be lower."

"You are charged based on how much you use the solution."

"We are using pay-as-you-go licenses mostly for our customers."

"It's free out of the box."

"I think the solution was free initially."

"The product is not cheap, but it is not expensive either."

"I rate the tool's pricing a seven out of ten."

More Azure Cost Management pricing and cost advice

"The cost is on par with other providers."

"A license is needed to use CloudCheckr CMx High Security, but because we are a managed service provider, the price of the license would vary. It depends on the type of cloud users we have, for example, it would be some type of percentage or monthly billing, etc."

"The solution is reasonably priced."

See which vendors are best for you

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

See recommendations

831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

15%

Computer Software Company

13%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Insurance Company

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Energy/Utilities Company

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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...

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Azure Cost Management?

Gives visibility into the cost of cloud-based solutions.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Cost Management?

The pricing is cost-effective, and I have not encountered any extra expenses attached after purchasing the service.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Azure Cost Management?

Azure Cost Management is a little complicated, and the learning curve is somewhat steep. An enhancement recommendatio...

See all answers

What do you like most about CloudCheckr ?

The recommendation section is pretty helpful.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudCheckr ?

The price depends on the actual Azure consumption and what we feed into it. The cost is on par with other providers.

See all answers

What needs improvement with CloudCheckr ?

We are not happy with the product’s reporting capabilities. We are planning to change the solution. The security comp...

See all answers

Comparisons

VMware Aria Operations vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 19% of the time

VMware vSphere vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 9% of the time

Cisco Intersight vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 9% of the time

Cloudability vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 7% of the time

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth vs IBM Turbonomic

Compared 6% of the time

More IBM Turbonomic Competitors

Cloudability vs Azure Cost Management

Compared 18% of the time

VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth vs Azure Cost Management

Compared 12% of the time

Zabbix vs Azure Cost Management

Compared 11% of the time

Amazon CloudWatch vs Azure Cost Management

Compared 5% of the time

AWS Savings Plans vs Azure Cost Management

Compared 4% of the time

More Azure Cost Management Competitors

Cloudability vs CloudCheckr

Compared 23% of the time

Apptio One vs CloudCheckr

Compared 20% of the time

Prisma Cloud by Palo Alto Networks vs CloudCheckr

Compared 16% of the time

Flexera Cloud Cost Management vs CloudCheckr

Compared 12% of the time

More CloudCheckr Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

IBM Turbonomic

January 2025

Download IBM Turbonomic product report

Buyer's Guide

Azure Cost Management

January 2025

Download Azure Cost Management product report

Buyer's Guide

CloudCheckr

January 2025

Download CloudCheckr product report

Also Known As

Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager

Microsoft Azure Cost Management, Cloudyn

CloudCheckr CMx High Security, CloudCheckr CMP

Learn More

Video not available

IBM

Microsoft

Video not available

Spot by NetApp

Interactive Demo

IBM

Demo not available

Microsoft

Demo not available

Spot by NetApp

Overview

IBM Turbonomic is a performance and cost optimization platform for public, private, and hybrid clouds used by companies to assure application performance while eliminating inefficiencies by dynamically resourcing applications through automated actions.

IBM Turbonomic leverages AI to continuously analyze application resource consumption, deliver insights and dashboards, and make real-time adjustments. Common use cases include cloud cost optimization, cloud migration planning, data center modernization, FinOps acceleration, Kubernetes optimization, sustainable IT, and application resource management. By integrating with various cloud platforms, on-premise infrastructures, and containers, IBM Turbonomic provides a holistic view of the environment, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently.

The solution is designed to support complex IT environments, offering actionable insights and automated actions that help IT teams proactively manage application performance and infrastructure resources. Turbonomic customers report an average 33% reduction in cloud and infrastructure waste without impacting application performance, and return-on-investment of 471% over three years.

IBM Turbonomic manages resources across hybrid and on-premises data centers to ensure efficiency and financial impact awareness. It automates resource allocation, balances memory dynamically, and provides robust performance metrics. Users benefit from its ability to prevent resource starvation and offer cost-saving recommendations through continuous management. Executive Dashboards provide insights for cost justification and resource management, making IT operations simpler with AI-driven automation and actionable recommendations.

What are the most important features of IBM Turbonomic?

Automated Resource Allocation: Dynamically allocates resources for optimal performance.
Dynamic Memory Balancing: Adjusts memory allocation to prevent resource shortages.
Right-Sizing: Sizes VMs accurately for Azure and on-prem environments.
Single Platform Management: Manages resources across hybrid and on-premises data centers.
Proactive Performance Optimization: Continuously optimizes performance to prevent issues.
Kubernetes Support: Enhances container management with robust support.
Cost-Saving Recommendations: Provides actionable tips for reducing expenses.

What benefits should users look for in IBM Turbonomic reviews?

Cost Reduction: Helps minimize expenses through efficient resource management.
Performance Improvement: Enhances application performance by preventing resource starvation.
Detailed Insights: Offers comprehensive analytics to justify costs and resource utilization.
Simplified IT Processes: Uses AI automation to streamline operations.

IBM Turbonomic is implemented across multiple industries, including finance for optimizing peak payroll processing, IT for enhanced virtual server management, and healthcare for reliable performance monitoring. Organizations benefit from its robust automation, ensuring maximum efficiency and cost savings.

Azure Cost Management provides actionable insights for IT professionals to optimize cloud expenses and align budgets with strategic goals. It features real-time visibility and analytics for efficient resource management.

Azure Cost Management offers a comprehensive suite of tools for cost analysis and control, including budgeting alerts and integration capabilities to optimize resource spending. Its intuitive interface simplifies navigation while providing trend analysis, forecasting, and cost-saving recommendations. By delivering detailed insights into resource usage, Azure helps organizations manage expenses effectively, enabling strategic financial planning through clear visualizations and reports.

What are the key features of Azure Cost Management?

Customizable Cost Analysis: Tailored insights to analyze expenses effectively.
Real-Time Consumption Visibility: Immediate data access for informed decision-making.
Budgeting Alerts: Set alerts to monitor and control spending.
Advisor Recommendations: Integrated advice for cost optimization.
Integration Capabilities: Seamless integration with various platforms.
Trend Analysis and Forecasting: Tools to predict future costs and trends.

What benefits should be expected when using Azure Cost Management?

Expense Optimization: Streamlined processes for managing cloud costs.
Enhanced Budget Management: Precise control over budget allocations.
Improved Financial Insights: Clear reporting for better financial planning.
Strategic Resource Allocation: Insights for aligning resources with business goals.
Efficient Infrastructure Management: Support for cost management strategies across deployments.

Azure Cost Management is widely implemented in industries seeking to monitor and control budgets, optimize costs, and track resource spending. Companies utilize it to gain billing insights, understand usage patterns, and minimize cloud expenses. It is instrumental in managing infrastructure costs and supporting cost management strategies across different deployments, making it valuable for projecting profitability and setting cost alerts.

CloudCheckr CMx High Security is a cloud management platform that provides complete visibility into cost and security issues. The primary use cases are day-to-day operations, cloud management, identifying open vulnerabilities and issues from a security perspective, and cost management and optimization.

The solution is praised for its stability, simplicity, ease of use, scalability, excellent technical support, and granular reporting. CloudCheckr CMx High Security provides priority-level data on security issues and vulnerabilities, making it easy to identify critical issues that need immediate attention.

Sample Customers

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

Quixey, Infomedia, Panaya, Wix.com, Mirabeau, Mi9, GetTaxi, Outsmart Studios, Bownty, BlazeMeter: The Load Testing Cloud, Irdeto, Effective Measure, Totango, Nextdoor, BranchOut, The BioTeam, Evolven, Netotiate, ClickSoftware

Accenture, Logitech, Ingram, Cloudar, Infor, DXC, Cornell University, DLT, Lumen, Lightstream, Choice Hotels, B-Tech, SmileShark, PTP, Explicity, JCH Technology, Siemens Mobility

Buyer's Guide

Azure Cost Management vs. CloudCheckr

January 2025

Free Report: Azure Cost Management vs. CloudCheckr

Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Cost Management vs. CloudCheckr and other solutions. Updated: January 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Azure Cost Management vs. CloudCheckr report.

See our list of best Cloud Cost Management vendors.

We monitor all Cloud Cost 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.