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

HPE OneSphere vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 17, 2024

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

HPE OneSphere
Ranking in Cloud Management
44th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
2
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 (10th), Cloud Analytics (1st), Cloud Cost Management (1st), AIOps (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Cloud Management category, the mindshare of HPE OneSphere is 1.6%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 4.7%, down from 5.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic4.7%
HPE OneSphere1.6%
Other93.7%
Cloud Management
 

Featured Reviews

it_user781113 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solutions Engineer at Data Strategy
Worked right the first time out-of-the-box; we were provisioning to AWS within 10 minutes
Ironically, most of the features that we might have wanted to see were already introduced in the product announcement today, from what we saw in the beta, which was kind of cool. You can't come to market unless you have Azure support, and Azure was all over every slide we saw, so that was pretty cool. A couple of things that I did see, there are a couple of security features that need to be enhanced. It is way too easy to provision a VM onto a public cloud, wide open to everybody. So, there are a couple of issues there. We are obviously going to talk with the product teams and the architects about some of those things; a handful of things here and there. Most of the things we were looking for were already included. Things that we had requested a month ago, we are now seeing them here: Azure Stack integration and the OneView integration. These were the things we were saying, "Hey, if these were there, it would be really cool. We could use this." All of a sudden, "Oh hey, guess what is going to be at launch?" I am very eager to get my hands on the next version of this product, and to see what may or may not be missing.
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

"OneSphere being a SaaS platform, you do not have to deal with those issues, it is in quickly and you can begin utilizing it right away."
"With all the time and investment in all the competitive products, still it makes them not even a competitor anymore, with how this works."
"Starting from the reporting and recommendations, every feature has been very helpful."
"Customer service has been amazing, the guys on the tech teams have been available and helpful every time we have had an issue."
"Customer Service: Top notch."
"Planning infrastructure needs for our virtual environment was previously a tedious task that included a lot of guesswork, and with Turbonomic we can now precisely model future workload and infrastructure supply to plan for growth."
"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."
"Within a week of running Turbonomic we were able to see clearly which guest systems needed to be resized and, especially, moved to other nodes within our clusters to obtain the optimal performance."
"It has increased the utilization of our hosts without sacrificing performance."
"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."
 

Cons

"A couple of things that I did see, there are a couple of security features that need to be enhanced."
"We are looking to be able to set a hard budget for the workspaces or projects."
"We have issues only when we upgrade the product, example in 5.7 we have issues with HyperV and VMM."
"We have no ROI so far."
"Since Turbonomic can do so much, it can be a complex system to look at for one that haven’t laid eyes on it before."
"There are a few things that we did notice. It does kind of seem to run away from itself a little bit; it does seem to have a mind of its own sometimes, and it goes out there and just kind of goes crazy."
"The one point is the reporting. We do have reports out of it, but they're not the level of graphical detail I would like."
"In Azure, it's not what you're using. You purchase the whole 8 TB disk and you pay for it. It doesn't matter how much you're using. So something that I've asked for from Turbonomic is recommendations based on disk utilization. In the example of the 8 TB disk where only 200 GBs are being used, based on the history, there should be a recommendation like, "You can safely use a 500 GB disk." That would create a lot of savings."
"We are looking forward to the HTML5 interface."
"Remove the need for special in-house knowledge and development."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive."
"What I can advise is to trial the product, taking advantage of the Turbonomic pre-sales implemention support and kickstart training."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I consider the pricing to be high."
"Licensing is per socket, so load up on the cores rather than a lot of lower core CPUs."
"It's worth the time and money investment if you can afford it."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Management solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
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

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

No data available
Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Land O’Lakes
IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
Find out what your peers are saying about HPE OneSphere vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.