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

IBM Kubecost vs IBM Turbonomic 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

IBM Kubecost
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
22nd
Average Rating
9.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Turbonomic
Ranking in Cloud Cost Management
1st
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (3rd), Cloud Management (4th), Virtualization Management Tools (3rd), IT Financial Management (1st), IT Operations Analytics (11th), Cloud Analytics (1st), AIOps (16th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Cloud Cost Management category, the mindshare of IBM Kubecost is 2.8%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 6.1%, down from 13.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Cost Management Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM Turbonomic6.1%
IBM Kubecost2.8%
Other91.1%
Cloud Cost Management
 

Featured Reviews

DIRK UYTTERHOEVEN - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Enterprise Architect at DV Consulting
Identifies and eliminates overprovisioning of expensive resources like storage, highly scalable and offers performance
I like the overall product because I can select what monitoring should be enabled and whatnot. In our case, we really focus on performance because it's clear that the price is related to most performance setups. So the more performance, the more expensive. So we look into the performance that the customer needs, and then based upon that feedback from the remote control, we change the parameters. And even the end user will not notice it is not using it, so we just make money without any impact on the end users.
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

"It offers a detailed examination of your cluster, including the types of instances utilized, allocated CPU and RAM, and resource distribution for specific applications."
"The price is reasonable, considering the value it delivers."
"I mostly like the dashboards."
"Automation options for moving and resizing VMs as necessary have been crucial for our environment's performance."
"Automation of leveling out compute power across servers and forecasting."
"Better than DRS to load balance VMs across hosts, allowing us to release 30% more computing resources."
"Cost effective solution that works."
"Turbonomic is one of the best software solutions ever written."
"It has saved us from purchasing new hardware in four regional offices and had us extend the service for two years, instead of buying new servers (HPE Gen8 and Gen9 servers running on fifth year)."
"Turbonomic is fantastic at scalability! It has great built in tools to plan scaling."
"The direct impact is that we decided to expand our platform and I needed specific numbers to see how a specific node would impact our environment, we were able to get specific reporting."
 

Cons

"There is a significant potential for enhancing it through the incorporation of advanced technologies like AI and generative AI."
"The integration with other solutions could be improved."
"Faster monitoring could potentially improve overall stability in the production environment."
"Enhanced executive reporting standard with the tool beyond the reports that can be created today. Something that can easily be used with upper management on a monthly or quarterly basis to show the impact to our environment."
"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. It goes out there and just kind of goes crazy. There needs to be something that kind of throttles things back a little bit. I have personally seen where we've been working on things, then pulled servers out of the VMware cluster and found that Turbonomic was still trying to ship resources to and from that node. So, there has to be some kind of throttling or ability for it to not be so buggy in that area. Because we've pulled nodes out of a cluster into maintenance mode, then brought it back up, and it tried to put workloads on that outside of a cluster. There may be something that is available for this, but it seems very kludgy to me."
"The UI is a little dated."
"GUI can be more user friendly."
"Regular upgrades and patching requires a period of getting used to the new environment before getting hands-on with the tool."
"It would be nice for them to have a way to do something with physical machines, but I know that is not their strength."
"Definitions/descriptions of what each chart means. The line graph looks good, but doesn't mean anything without prior knowledge of what a good UI number is for example."
"I am not a giant fan of the new interface. I still use the older interface."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The cost of the tool may seem nominal compared to the potential savings in infrastructure expenses."
"The real savings come from using Kubecost features like autoscaling and serverless functions to optimize your resource usage. If you treat it like a data center migration without fine-tuning, it might cost more."
"The cost is cheap. Kubecost has an open-source core."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Licensing is per socket, so load up on the cores rather than a lot of lower core CPUs."
"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."
"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."
"The pricing is in line with the other solutions that we have. It's not a bargain software, nor is it overly expensive."
"Contact the Turbonomic sales team, explain your needs and what you're looking to monitor. They will get a pre-sales SE on the phone and together work up a very accurate quote."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Cost Management solutions are best for your needs.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Insurance Company
14%
Construction Company
10%
Transportation Company
7%
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

Kubecost - Amazon EKS cost monitoring
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 IBM Kubecost vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,244 professionals have used our research since 2012.