What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Snowflake?

The pricing part is based on the computing and storage. The costs are different and then there are services costs as well. I have heard that Snowflake is costlier than Redshift or GCP BigQuery. A small customer may not go for Snowflake.

The product's price range falls between average to a bit expensive range. I think the tool is worth the money if you use it properly. It is difficult for me to speak about the number of users who use the product. My company pays around a couple of thousand dollars a month to 10,000 dollars or more.

The tool's pricing is based on the number of queries you want on your database. The cost is small. To get the tool's pricing, you can do the math based on the cost per query, which is $0.002. If you're running your queries frequently, your charges will be higher than running fewer queries.

Users have to pay a licensing fee for the solution, which is expensive.

Snowflake is a cost-effective solution.

Snowflake is cost-effective. The pricing is better than Firebolt. Firebolt is better when there is idle time. If we run Snowflake all the time, the cost will be higher.

I've heard it's quite expensive.

Many interesting features are available only in the enterprise edition. Check out the differences when you are evaluating the product: docs.snowflake.com

My impression is that the pricing of this solution is reasonable.

Part of the problem with the pricing is that it is very difficult for businesses to get an idea of how expensive it might be until they actually start using Snowflake. Until they start pushing large amounts of data through, we will not really know. I believe that it is very difficult for businesses to make a commitment.

Comparing Snowflake to on-prem options such as Oracle or SAP, it seemed more cost-effective. With Vantage, a one-time purchase allows for use as many times and to a large capacity, whereas Snowflake, Azure, and similar services become increasingly expensive as the scale increases. Determining the best point of cost-effectiveness requires further study.

We use Snowflake pretty heavily. We pay a significant amount of money for the tool. I'd say we pay $300k to $400K every year.

It's expensive.

Snowflake is a cloud-based solution that uses a pay-as-you-go model. The storage and processing are separated, and you are mainly charged for the processing power you use. Additionally, there is a charge for storage, but the primary cost comes from the processing. You can choose different sizes of processing units, also known as warehouses, for your specific workload or requirements. You pay for the per-second utilization of those computing resources. Snowflake is cost-effective. However, the cost can depend on how it's being used and how efficiently the code is written. If engineers don't write efficient code and usage is billed based on processing, it can become costly. If they write optimal code and choose the best solution, it can reduce costs in comparison to other options, such as Oracle.

It's important to understand the licensing model because if you're paying for the software, you're not necessarily aware of the use. It's important to monitor how you're using the resources otherwise you can find yourself in a difficult situation. Licensing costs depend on the agreement you have with Snowflake.

They have different pricing structures based on data usage. I think they have three or four tiers you can scale through. Most of the clients see an advantage from this type of licensing. That's the reason they go for it. It's priced competitively with other solutions.

The pricing is fair for all the features that Snowflake is providing. The way Snowflake has emerged in the past few years is impressive. It was just a beginner in the space, and it has become a leader in the market. For all the features it provides at a basic cost, it is impressive. There are no extra costs involved unless you need to scale and grow and need more in terms of size. When we started, a medium-size was sufficient. We'd since needed more. The solution allows us to suspend our warehouse as well if we would like. That said, even if you're paying a little more cost for the data safety that you have, you will ensure that there is no data loss that will happen. It's very impressive.

It is pay-as-you-go. Its cost is in the medium range.

I have worked with multiple clouds, and cost-wise, it is a bit costlier than others, such as Redshift. Its price should be reduced.

I believe that pricing is reasonable for this solution.

It is hard to say because we're usually engaged in the transition as opposed to the long term. Their storage costs are easily within pennies of what AWS S3 would normally cost. Most of the clients I've been working with are in the financial sector, and they're relatively small. I would put them in an SMB connection. The first thing we have to bring up for people is that they're going to build this. They shouldn't store their data in S3. They should pipeline directly into Snowflake and use it on their storage. So, the cost is a big issue because these are small to medium size companies, and that is the biggest thing we had to price point for them.

For our licensing, we renew every January by $25,000 in both credits. Their pricing structure is a pay-per-second usage in terms of credits, but you can get discounts if you buy them in bulk. I think it's $1.10 an hour in terms of usage. We just buy upfront and that gets us taken care of for the whole year.

The price of the solution is reasonable.

It is little more costly but it has great features to keep the control on pricing if utilised properly like different warehouse sizes, caching, auto-suspend of warehouses and some more.

I am not much aware of the price, but based on what I have analyzed so far, its cost is reasonable as compared to on-prem data warehouse solutions. It provides a great deal for production.

Snowflake is reasonably priced, close to half the cost of some other solutions.

In the beginning, we didn't know what we were doing, and we racked up huge compute costs, shockingly and quickly. But the sales team was extremely helpful and showed us where we were doing everything wrong, and they explained to us how best to use their platform. We have massively funded data engineering teams, but now our use has plummeted to almost free. Because of the caliber of our customers at the time, we had to sign on to the enterprise subscription tier. We're a startup, and we didn't know it at the time, but the cost per credit for the enterprise tier was almost double. The cost per credit, that's where you get all this unlimited autoscale that you don't even have to think about. We don't really need any of that because they already provide all the redundancy, backup, failover, and all of that stuff. We scaled down and cut all of our costs almost in half by getting rid of that scalability capability because we don't need that. They give a different price for every single company. I don't know if I negotiated that well, but we got the enterprise tier for $3 a credit, and the other two were a dollar-ninety a credit. I suspect we don't have almost zero compute usage, but I know that our annual contract packages are below all of their minimums.

There is a licensing for this solution and we purchased an enterprise license. Overall the solution is cost-effective.

We are the first global premier partner. We have the highest level of Snowflake partnership The licensing is a bit tricky as it's hard to calculate pricing ahead of time. That said, most customers I have dealt with have no issues at all with the pricing. They think it's reasonable. Obviously, everybody, every single customer, wants to receive a price. That goes without saying. However, if you ask me if it's a fair price for the market, the answer is yes.

The product is very reasonably priced. It's quite cheap to use. It's less expensive than, for example, Oracle.

Snowflake goes by credits. For a financial institution where you have 5,000 employees, monthly costs may run up to maybe $5,000 to $6,000. This is actually based on the usage. It is mostly the compute cost. Your computing cost is the variable that is actually based on your usage. It is pay-per-use. In a pay-per-use case, you won't be spending more than $6,000 to $7,000 a month. It is not more than that for a small or medium enterprise, and it may come down to $100K per year. Storage is very standard, which is $23 a terabyte. It is not much for any enterprise. If you have even 20 terabytes, you are not spending more than $400 per month, which may turn out to be $2,000 to $3,000 per annum.

It is on a monthly basis. It is based on your usage. There are no additional costs from the point of the licensing fee. We do give some kind of evaluation to the customers about how much it is going to be. You can decide in Snowflake the virtual machine that you are using for customers. There are several kinds of virtual machines that you can use. It is similar to the clothing sizes: small to extra large. If you need more power in the coming month, you can decide in advance and take a more powerful machine. You can just select it from the platform. You can also decide which machine you want to take for extracting data.

Currently, we have a trial account, so we don't need a license. After our project starts, we would need a permanent license.

We used Snowflake to see if it is cheaper than using BigQuery. It was just to maintain the cost or the KPI regarding the cost of connectivity by users. Snowflake wasn't cheaper than BigQuery, and its affordability was the main issue.

It is per credit. It has a use-it-as-you-go model. We bought a chunk of 20,000 credits, and they were lasting us for at least a year. We didn't have the scale of data like a much larger company to consume more credits. For us, it was very inexpensive. Their strategy is just to leverage what you've got and put Snowflake in the middle. It doesn't make it expensive because most of the organizations already have reporting tools. Now, if you were starting from scratch, it might be cheaper to go a different way.

Its price should be improved. It should be cheaper than Microsoft.

The pricing of the solution is fine. The storage is pretty cheap. They also offer a lot of discounts. The cost shouldn't really be a problem. That said, the agreement should be more of a subscription basis instead of asking for a commitment. For example, Microsoft tells your the price and allows you to subscribe to that, whereas, Snowflake wants you to commit to a certain amount of time before they really give you firm pricing.

The price of Snowflake is quite reasonable.

Snowflake has a very efficient pricing mechanism where you only pay for what you use by the second making it very easy to control costs.

It's pay-as-you-go with Snowflake. The cost is around $US 50 per DB. Terabyte is around $US 50 per month. There are no additional costs. They are divided into two steps to assist the computer power as well as the storage power. Computation cost is relative to the warehouse size. However long our warehouse is up and running, we are charged.

The pricing is flexible in that, for example, if I run a query and it is slow then I can increase the processing power while it is still running, and they charge more for the time. The cost is on a per-query basis. If you're running with a base processor, called a warehouse, the query might cost 1.0 cents. But, if my query is slow and I want to increase the speed, the next level adds a little more cost to that. On average, with the number of queries that we run, we pay approximately $200 USD per month.

The pricing for Snowflake is competitive.

Snowflake's pricing is a bit higher than other competitors.

The solution has an excellent pricing strategy. The costs are open and transparent. If you don't use it, you don't pay for it. It's that simple.

Basically, it is not cheap.

You pay based on the data that you are storing in the data warehouse and there are no maintenance costs.

The whole licensing system is based on credit points. That means you commit to using it and you pay for what you use. You can also make a license agreement with the company so that you buy credit points and then you use them. So if you buy credit points that you think will last you for a year, you pay a certain amount of money and then you have these credit points available. What you do not use in one year can be carried over to the next year and it is that easy. The advantage of buying more is that you get a discount when you buy a bigger package with more credits.

Pricing can be confusing for customers. For example, if a customer is asking for an estimate of the price, it's hard to tell because it is not easy to measure. Improvement on the pricing and how it is presented is needed.

It's an expensive solution. We can't predict exactly how much until we've streamlined everything and the user requirements have been completed, but normally they charge on the storage, which depends upon the average storage amount used for the month.

Snowflake computing is very affordable. Less expensive than Redshift.