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

AWS Cost Explorer vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 22, 2026

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

AWS Cost Explorer
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
11th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Financial Data Analysis Platforms (3rd)
IBM Turbonomic
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
1st
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (3rd), Cloud Management (4th), Virtualization Management Tools (3rd), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (10th), Cloud Analytics (1st), AIOps (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of AWS Cost Explorer is 2.5%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 5.9%, down from 12.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Cost Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic5.9%
AWS Cost Explorer2.5%
Other91.6%
Cloud Cost Management
 

Featured Reviews

Chukwudi Uzoma - PeerSpot reviewer
Head Of IT, Infrastructure at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Improved cost visibility has supported data‑driven savings and faster anomaly investigations
The best features AWS Cost Explorer offers include cost and usage trend analysis, the cost forecasting feature, service-level spending breakdowns, the tags and cost allocation analysis, Savings Plans recommendations, Reserved Instances recommendations, and reservation coverage and utilization reports. I also appreciate being able to filter by account, service, region, tag, and cost category. The features that stand out for my workflow include cost and usage trend analysis, which I probably could not imagine working without because it really helps me follow the evolution of the different costs per account, per month over the entire year to be able to give useful information to management for possible commitment purposes and decision-making. Without this service or feature, it would be difficult. I particularly appreciate how quickly I can move from a high-level cost view to detailed analysis without requiring complex queries or external reporting tools. AWS Cost Explorer has positively impacted my organization by improving our cost visibility, enabling better financial accountability, and supporting data-driven optimization decisions. It also facilitates collaboration between the teams—engineering, finance, procurement, and leadership—by providing a common source of truth for cloud spending. While I cannot disclose confidential figures, AWS Cost Explorer has helped support cloud optimization initiatives that resulted in great annual savings opportunities through Savings Plans, Reserved Instances, and rightsizing initiatives. It has also reduced the time required to investigate our cost anomalies from hours to minutes. When I mention reduced investigation time from hours to minutes, the typical workflow before involved a team being lost, trying to reconcile where these costs have come from, what accounts have been involved, which services, and jumping from one account to another. For example, if leadership were to ask why AWS cost increased by twenty percent compared to the previous month, this investigation could take hours because you would need to review invoices, analyze usage reports, check which services had increased consumption, identify the affected accounts, and then contact engineering teams for context. However, AWS Cost Explorer streamlined this process significantly because it provides immediate visibility into cost trends. I can quickly compare the time periods, filter by service, account, region, tag, and cost category, and identify the primary drivers of the increase within minutes.
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

"AWS Cost Explorer is beneficial because you can access a simple interface where you can get an overview of all the costs you have in the cloud environment."
"AWS Cost Explorer has positively impacted my organization by improving our cost visibility, enabling better financial accountability, and supporting data-driven optimization decisions."
"I find the forecasting feature particularly valuable as it helps predict future expenses."
"Customer Service: Excellent. They have teams dedicated to helping their customers get the most from the product."
"Turbonomic's ability to automatically load balance my storage and hosts has saved a lot of time."
"Getting a better understanding on host utilization, providing better planning on infrastructure upgrades."
"Turbonomic has helped optimize cloud operations and reduced our cloud costs significantly, with overall savings of about 40 percent on our roughly three million dollars a year Azure spend, primarily by right-sizing machines instead of overprovisioning."
"We can manage multiple environments using a single pane of glass, which is something that I really like."
"It helps us stay on top of the health of our virtual infrastructure, make near-real-time decisions on how to fine-tune and adjust our infrastructure, and lets us be proactive in our approach."
"We have easily saved tens of thousands of dollars over the last 2 years by enabling right-sizing and automated workload placement."
"I have seen nothing in my infrastructure career that was as great as this product when it comes to resource utilization."
 

Cons

"The reason I would not give it a ten is that advanced analytics, forecasting, and reporting often require additional services, as I mentioned earlier, such as the CUR, Athena, Quicksight, or third-party FinOps platforms."
"One disadvantage of AWS Cost Explorer is that you cannot filter too much. You cannot filter data by more than one variable."
"While there is always room for improvement, any needs for enhancement depend on specific requirements at the time. Currently, I cannot pinpoint any specific improvements needed."
"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."
"I have had some issues from time to time with DB table errors, though not sure if it is a product issue or the storage I am on."
"Occasionally the server does not load balance properly and needs to be restarted."
"The implementation could be enhanced."
"It is an expensive product so we have only licenced the critical hosts in production."
"The reporting module has very big potential, but really lacks predefined reports for all kinds of purposes."
"They could do with a little less UI clutter."
"It sometimes does get false positives. Sometimes, it will move something when it really wasn't a performance metric."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"I don't know the current prices, but I like how the licensing is based on the number of instances instead of sockets, clusters, or cores. We have some VMs that are so heavy I can only fit four on one server. It's not cost-effective if we have to pay more for those. When I move around a VM SQL box with 30 cores and a half-terabyte of RAM, I'm not paying for an entire socket and cores where people assume you have at least 10 or 20 VMs on that socket for that pricing."
"If you're a super-small business, it may be a little bit pricey for you... But in large, enterprise companies where money is, maybe, less of an issue, Turbonomic is not that expensive. I can't imagine why any big company would not buy it, for what it does."
"When we have expanded our licensing, it has always been easy to make an ROI-based decision. So, it's reasonably priced. We would like to have it cheaper, but we get more benefit from it than we pay for it. At the end of the day, that's all you can hope for."
"Everybody tells me the pricing is high. But the ROIs are great."
"Licensing is per socket, so load up on the cores rather than a lot of lower core CPUs."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
25%
Comms Service Provider
12%
Healthcare Company
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business41
Midsize Enterprise57
Large Enterprise147
 

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with AWS Cost Explorer?
One disadvantage of AWS Cost Explorer is that you cannot filter too much. You cannot filter data by more than one variable. It depends on the specific permissions you assign to the group that will ...
What is your primary use case for AWS Cost Explorer?
We have been handling all of the AWS infrastructure for the customer for maybe two years.
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 ...
What needs improvement with Turbonomic?
The implementation could be enhanced.
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...
 

Also Known As

Reserved Instance Reporting
Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Cost Explorer vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.