Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cloudability vs Finout comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Cloudability
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
3rd
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.3
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Finout
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
37th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of Cloudability is 7.1%, down from 12.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Finout is 0.9%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Cost Management Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Cloudability7.1%
Finout0.9%
Other92.0%
Cloud Cost Management
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2795433 - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise Cloud Operations Lead at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Gained multi-cloud cost visibility and have optimized spend with detailed reports and rightsizing
The IAM feature is something that we struggle with using. IBM, the company that runs Cloudability, released the Groups feature back in the summer of 2025. While Groups can be used in some parts of the tool, it can't be used across the entire tool. I've found that Groups is basically unusable because if it can't be used everywhere, you would have to run both group-based access control and direct user-based access control at the same time, which doesn't make any sense. The Groups feature has improved over time, but it's still not something we feel we can use on an everyday basis, so the IAM section remains an issue right now. Most of the tool is very well-functioning and developed, and that's the only real improvement area that we've seen.
reviewer2795433 - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise Cloud Operations Lead at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Unified cloud cost views have improved anomaly detection and enabled proactive budget control
The right sizing feature is okay. It could be used, but I feel its functionality isn't as strong as the cloud-native solutions, so GCP, AWS, and Azure. They all have better right sizing capabilities, so you probably wouldn't carry out right sizing from Finout. You'd want to do it directly in the cloud platforms. The right sizing feature needs more development. Also, the reservations analysis feature isn't quite detailed enough as it should be. If you're making purchasing decisions based off of a cloud tool, it's probably better right now to do it directly through the cloud-native tooling rather than through Finout. Those are the two features where I feel they could be improved. It's a great tool, but it does have those two areas of improvement in the right sizing and the reservation sections. If those sections were functioning very well and were very deep, then I would give it a ten out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"One of the standout features of the solution is its groups and views functionality. The solution is highly-stable. The solution is highly-scalable. The customer support is good. They can be easily contacted. The initial setup is straightforward. It's an excellent tool, especially when dealing with multiple clouds. It streamlines the process, eliminating the need to check each cloud individually."
"The pricing isn't too expensive."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to create reports and dashboards."
"The most crucial feature in reducing my cloud costs has been the rightsizing recommendations, along with the dashboards that track reserved instance spending coverage and utilization. As for Cloudability's integration with our existing cloud infrastructure, it's not integrated directly into our AWS infrastructure but rather reads and pulls data from it, providing valuable insights and analysis for cost management."
"We use the product to get a detailed level of transparency on the cloud strengths."
"It has already given us insight into how to optimize. So, we are now ramping up steadily its usage."
"Cloudability's customizable alerts help me maintain budgetary goals by providing recommendations and alerts on slot usages."
"Cloudability takes care of identifying and managing the cloud."
"In terms of money saved, organizations could very easily save anywhere from ten to thirty percent of their cloud costs."
 

Cons

"Cloudability needs to improve on data collection from cloud sources."
"There are also some limitations with the dashboards and data representation in Cloudability."
"We would like them to have a linear regression, so we can be predictive for budgets, allocations, and the year's follow ups. We also want to have a longer window of analytics with better certainty that our workload will fit the model, not just in a two week window."
"We have dealt with a few technical support people where we ask for one thing and they might not deliver straightaway. It seems like they are a stretched across multiple customers."
"In general, I feel Cloudability wasn't able to support many resources."
"There is always room for improvement in education and training. We are not that mature in terms of our automation. It could help us identify where we could optimize in terms of build."
"Enhancements could be made in the user interface and customization, and leveraging GenAI would be an area for improvement in Cloudability."
"I wish there was a feature to temporarily remove certain recommendations from the list for teams that couldn't implement them immediately. I believe Cloudability could improve its automation functionality and enhance cost allocation modeling."
"The right sizing feature is okay. It could be used, but I feel its functionality isn't as strong as the cloud-native solutions, so GCP, AWS, and Azure."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Cloudability is a bit expensive."
"My team is one of the most expensive teams, and we look at it quite a bit. We have probably easily saved around $400,000 USD a year."
"We have seen ROI with the reserved instances, and having the ability to predict what reserved instances you can get. We can save tens of thousands of dollars, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases."
"The price of the license or the usage is a percentage of the top consumption. So it varies from year to year."
"It justifies the cost and is worth it."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
23%
Computer Software Company
10%
Retailer
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business2
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cloudability?
The most crucial feature in reducing my cloud costs has been the rightsizing recommendations, along with the dashboards that track reserved instance spending coverage and utilization. As for Clouda...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cloudability?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was adequate, but it could be made better.
What needs improvement with Cloudability?
It would be beneficial if we could use resource tags to provide more fine-grained visibility.
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Adobe, Uber, Pega, imgur, Pixable, Blackboard, Keboola, Avalara
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM, Nutanix, Apptio and others in Cloud Cost Management. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.