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

Foglight for Virtualization vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 1, 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

Foglight for Virtualization
Ranking in Virtualization Management Tools
11th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Turbonomic
Ranking in Virtualization Management Tools
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (3rd), Cloud Management (4th), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (11th), Cloud Analytics (1st), Cloud Cost Management (1st), AIOps (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Virtualization Management Tools category, the mindshare of Foglight for Virtualization is 4.4%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 16.6%, up from 15.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Virtualization Management Tools Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic16.6%
Foglight for Virtualization4.4%
Other79.0%
Virtualization Management Tools
 

Featured Reviews

Waleed Masad - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Manager at METS
Easy-to-setup product with efficient data migration features
Many customers consider Quest Foglight for Virtualization a critical tool for migrations or new projects. In particular, one noteworthy case involved a bank that made Foglight integration a prerequisite. Some customers now rely 100% entirely on Foglight for their daily operations The product is…
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

"The product is stable and easy to set up. It provides minimum false alarms."
"With Turbonomic, we were able to reduce our ESX cluster size and save money on our maintenance and license renewals. It saved us around $75,000 per year but it's a one-time reduction in VMware licensing. We don't renew the support. The ongoing savings is probably $50,000 to $75,000 a year, but there was a one-time of $200,000 plus."
"Technical support is where Turbonomic shines."
"The automation in Turbonomic is priceless, and all the dashboards, native or custom build, give a complete virtual and physical hardware performance view."
"Performance is something that should constantly be monitored and constantly be worked on, and Turbonomic is doing that in the background, without me having to manually do it, which is a great help."
"ROI can sometimes be quite subjective; however, with Turbonomic it’s genuinely evident from the get-go, with automation working toward maximum optimization, efficiency, and uptime, and capacity and future planning capabilities that offer the ability to generate the what-if scenarios using your own current environment as the model to build on."
"Cost effective solution that works."
"I have the ability to automate things similar to the Orchestrator stuff. I do have the ability to have it do some balancing, and if it sees some different performance metrics that I've set not being met, it'll actually move some of my virtual machines from, let's say, one host to another. It is sort of an automation tool that helps me. Basically, I specify the metric, and if I get a certain host or something being over-utilized, it'll automatically move the virtual machines around for me. It basically has to snap into my vCenter and then it can make adjustments and move my virtual machines around. It also has some very nice reporting tools built around virtual machines. It tells you how much storage, memory, or CPU is being used monthly, and then it gives you a very nice way to be able to send out billing structure to your end users who use servers within your environment."
"The automation of balancing VMware cluster workloads ensures that my VMware clusters are always running in an optimal state and the streamlined automation is what sold me on this product."
 

Cons

"Quest Foglight for Virtualization's integration needs enhancement."
"We would also like to see expansion made in the UCS tools that they provide, to allow viewing the entire UCS environment and not just the equipment that hosts a hypervisor."
"There is room for improvement with upgrades. We have deployed the newer version, version 8 of Turbonomic. The problem is that there is no way to upgrade between major Turbonomic versions."
"The flash interface looks dated and is a little cluttered making navigating the portal less than optimal."
"Planning tools could be easier to use. Depending on your needs, it can be time consuming to get what you want."
"Like any software I use, I'm looking for the least amount of clicking needed to get to places. If I need to click 10 different windows to get a report, I'm done with the software."
"Yes, after every major update a new bug would cause an issue requiring another update."
"The current Flash user interface is sometimes slow, but the new HTML5 interface is already in development."
"Some features are only available via changes to the deployment YAML, and it would be better to have them in the UI."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is affordable."
"It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive."
"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."
"In the last year, Turbonomic has reduced our cloud costs by $94,000."
"It's worth the time and money investment if you can afford it."
"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."
"I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive."
"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."
"IBM Turbonomic is an investment that we believe will deliver positive returns."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Virtualization Management Tools solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Insurance 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

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
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

VKernel vScope Explorer, vOPS Server, Vizioncore
Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Unimat, AeroM_xico Delta TechOps
IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Nutanix, IBM and others in Virtualization Management Tools. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.