No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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

BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management
Ranking in Cloud Management
42nd
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
5.3
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Monitoring Software (43rd)
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 (2nd), Virtualization Management Tools (3rd), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (9th), Cloud Analytics (1st), Cloud Cost Management (3rd), AIOps (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Cloud Management category, the mindshare of BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management is 1.6%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 4.4%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic4.4%
BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management1.6%
Other94.0%
Cloud Management
 

Featured Reviews

VB
Enterprise Solution Architect at a computer software company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Helps design blueprints in a cloud environment but the support is a major problem
One of the major problems is that support is not so good. I used to have a support expert in Spain but they left two years ago. BMC doesn't invest a lot in network automation but network automation is a major point in CLM. There aren't any experts here in Europe, maybe they have in America, I don't know. The main problem is the support in Europe. We had a lot of problems with the people who got put on our cases. The agents that we were assigned to were not so capable. They wanted to replicate the problem. If you have an incident, it takes a lot of time to troubleshoot the problem. The incident support is not so good. The technicians don't know the platform well. BMC doesn't want to invest in CLM. Two years ago we had a lot of problems. Maybe BMC realized that CLM is an end of life product.
reviewer1446966 - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's helped us with our automation."
"We have many regions where more than 10000 servers are deployed, so it helps in patching and hardening of servers."
"Integrates role-based access control with pre-configured policies for CIS, DISA, HIPAA, PCI, SOX, NIST, and SCAP documentation and remediation."
"Supports unattended installs and image-based, script-based, or template-based provisioning."
"Assesses change impact or completes an audit using multiple dashboard views."
"Allowing systems to be provisioned in a wide range of environments, such as Azure, AWS, or on-premise, reduces the level of training required as well as creates consistency across the board."
"You can tie together your public and private cloud infrastructure into a "single pane of glass"."
"Total build time has been reduced from four weeks to one week, then later to 24 hours."
"Helps us get the most out of the hardware we have in place."
"We have really loved having VMTurbo."
"The software is very cost effective, especially in comparison to other products."
"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."
"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."
"Customer Service: Probably the best customer service I have ever encountered."
"Customer Service: Perfect, with attention to details on every open ticket, and Technical Support: Top notch effort put into each support request."
"Customer Service: Always helpful."
 

Cons

"One of the major problems is that support is not so good."
"Needs integrations with other providers to provide a custom public cloud environment."
"It was complex as it does not include a good, extensive feasibility and compatibility guide."
"The installation and configuration can be tricky due to it being built on Remedy."
"Going to BMC for PS is not at all recommended from my experience."
"There are charts and graphs in the dashboard that are confusing to read and understand."
"Our Oracle database servers requires a large amount of resources within the virtual server. Turbonomic always thinks these servers are over-provisioned and would move resources if they were configured auto mode."
"There is a lot of information and to get a plan or report correct is a little trial and error."
"After running this solution in production for a year, we may want a more granular approach to how we utilize the product because we are planning to use some of its metrics to feed into our financial system."
"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."
"Waiting for the HTML5 GUI since flash has refresh issues."
"The automated resize of VMs requires caution. Make sure you properly configure this feature before it is enabled."
"Every once in a while when we perform an upgrade, it wipes out our setting."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Licensing is per socket, so load up on the cores rather than a lot of lower core CPUs."
"IBM Turbonomic is an investment that we believe will deliver positive returns."
"I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive."
"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."
"In the last year, Turbonomic has reduced our cloud costs by $94,000."
"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."
"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."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Management solutions are best for your needs.
912,801 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
16%
Insurance Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business42
Midsize Enterprise57
Large Enterprise147
 

Also Known As

BMC CLM
Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JDA Software, Morningstar, Orange Business Services, Wipro
IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
Find out what your peers are saying about BMC Cloud Lifecycle Management vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
912,801 professionals have used our research since 2012.