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

Google Cloud Billing vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 2, 2025

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

Google Cloud Billing
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
36th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Turbonomic
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
3rd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (2nd), Cloud Management (4th), Virtualization Management Tools (3rd), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (9th), Cloud Analytics (1st), AIOps (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of Google Cloud Billing is 1.9%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 5.4%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Cost Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic5.4%
Google Cloud Billing1.9%
Other92.7%
Cloud Cost Management
 

Featured Reviews

AshirbadDasmohapatra - PeerSpot reviewer
Lead Engineer - Work Modernization at Searce Inc
A cloud-based solution that can be used to pay for or renew the license of Google Workspace products
We use Google Cloud Billing to pay for or renew the license of our Google Workspace products Google Cloud Billing should have a more user-friendly interface. I have been working with Google Cloud Billing for more than five years. Google’s customer support is very good. Google Cloud Billing 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

"What I like most about this solution is that it's easy."
"We use Google Cloud Billing to pay for or renew the license of our Google Workspace products."
"We are using Google Cloud instances and Google Cloud Functions, which are great, and we've been using BigQuery, Pub/Sub, and Firebase, making it very helpful for cost management."
"It is a stable product."
"This tool offers us the best mechanism we have had so far to implement this effort."
"The tool provides the ability to look at the consumption utilization over a period of time and determine if we need to change that resource allocation based on the actual workload consumption, as opposed to how IT has configured it. Therefore, we have come to realize that a lot of our workloads are overprovisioned, and we are spending more money in the public cloud than we need to."
"We allow it to do all our VMotion migrations, ensuring our systems are running at their peak performance."
"We automate our vMotions, so it has helped us keep congestion on our hosts way down, and has been more effective than DRS."
"Turbonomic is fantastic at scalability! It has great built in tools to plan scaling."
"Improvements for performance or growth can be executed without human interference."
"The ability to monitor and automate both the right-sizing of VMs as well as to automate the vMotion of VMs across ESXi hosts."
"The proactive monitoring of all our open enrollment applications has improved our organization. We have used it to size applications that we are moving to the cloud. Therefore, when we move them out there, we have them appropriately sized. We use it for reporting to current application owners, showing them where they are wasting money. There are easy things to find for an application, e.g., they decommissioned the server, but they never took care of the storage. Without a tool like this, that storage would just sit there forever, with us getting billed for it."
 

Cons

"When I want to analyze the information, it would be better, since Google knows what I have used, to only show those items for analysis purposes."
"Google Cloud Billing should have a more user-friendly interface."
"The billing process is strange. It should be automatic."
"At times you will find that the computer engines are freezing or it's about to freeze without any notification or information and it's unable to diagnose where it is hung."
"I would still like to see more canned reports for historical data."
"They could add a few more reports. They could also be a bit more granular. While they have reports, sometimes it is hard to figure out what you are looking for just by looking at the date."
"The GUI and policy creation have room for improvement. There should be a better view of some of the numbers that are provided and easier to access. And policy creation should have it easier to identify groups."
"The appliance interface doesn’t list the features/capabilities that licenses can be purchased for, so unless you were directly involved in the negotiations, there is no way to tell what feature set you have."
"The other area would be visibility into bandwidth utilization."
"We don't use Turbonomic for FinOps and part of the reason is its cost reporting. The reporting could be much more robust and, if that were the case, I could pitch it for FinOps."
"Before IBM bought it, the support was fantastic. After IBM bought it, the support became very disappointing."
"We would like to see Turbonomics dive into JVMs and continue to work with HP in the integration with HP OneView 3.0."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The licensing fees are monthly and cost approximately $100.00."
"Licensing is per socket, so load up on the cores rather than a lot of lower core CPUs."
"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."
"I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive."
"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 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."
"You should understand the cost of your physical servers and how much time and money you are spending year over year on expanding your virtual farm."
"I consider the pricing to be high."
"The pricing is in line with the other solutions that we have. It's not a bargain software, nor is it overly expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

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

No data available
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 Google Cloud Billing vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
913,924 professionals have used our research since 2012.