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

CloudM Manage vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

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

CloudM Manage
Ranking in Cloud Management
80th
Average Rating
3.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
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 (3rd), Virtualization Management Tools (3rd), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (8th), Cloud Analytics (1st), Cloud Cost Management (3rd), AIOps (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Cloud Management category, the mindshare of CloudM Manage is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 4.7%, down from 5.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic4.7%
CloudM Manage0.4%
Other94.9%
Cloud Management
 

Featured Reviews

Kumaravadivel Palani - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr.Engr.Information Technology at Advik Hi-Tech Pvt Ltd
Performance is relatively poor and speed needs improvement
We use CloudM to store our employees' details We use it for backup storage only. In the future, my company may go for the testing on Cloud because it has a large infrastructure. The feature I like most is its stability. In terms of improvement, the performance of the solution should be made…
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

"CloudM has good stability and scalability."
"The most valuable features are the cluster utilization reports and the resource capacity planning. We can simulate how much capacity we can add to the current resources. The individual DM reports and VM-facing recommendations report are also helpful."
"I evaluated a slew of solutions and Turbonomic (then VMTurbo) was heads and tails above the competition."
"Provides a level of automation beyond VMware provided DRS."
"Turbonomic has, to an extent, helped us grow our VM environment without us having to buy new hardware."
"Comparing Turbonomic Support against HPE, VMware, and Cisco, is like comparing heaven and hell."
"With Turbonomic we are using our hardware resources more efficiently."
"Customer Service: Excellent. They've always been quick to support any issues/queries we have."
"One of the most valuable tools we encountered with Turbonomic was not even the automation tool we bought it for, but the sizing tool."
 

Cons

"In terms of improvement, the performance of the solution should be made better because it is slow these days."
"CloudM is slow compared to other solutions."
"Some features are only available via changes to the deployment YAML, and it would be better to have them in the UI."
"The user interface has room for improvement, but it is well on its way with the new UI that is being developed."
"When upgrading prior versions, I sometimes lost prior performance data. Even support was not able to retrieve it."
"Firstly the documentation and help files are not overly intuitive, providing very few examples or details on how to gain the most out of the product."
"They could do with a little less UI clutter."
"While old dashboard view is good, keep improving on the new Dashboard as I feel it is much better."
"A more interactive dashboard with integrated features."
"One of the areas of improvement are the UI."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"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."
"The pricing is in line with the other solutions that we have. It's not a bargain software, nor is it overly expensive."
"It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive."
"In the last year, Turbonomic has reduced our cloud costs by $94,000."
"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'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive."
"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 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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Management solutions are best for your needs.
915,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software 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

CloudM CloudManager
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 Nutanix, Broadcom, IBM and others in Cloud Management. Updated: September 2026.
915,287 professionals have used our research since 2012.