I use Cloudability to track costs across a multi-cloud infrastructure estate, including Google Cloud, AWS Cloud, and Microsoft Azure. Everything from reports and dashboards to anomaly alerts and right-sizing is managed through Cloudability.

I regularly use the reporting feature in Cloudability. If I'm trying to figure out how much cost is attributed to a specific account, I'd create a report based on the account name. That allows for historical tracking of how the costs have maybe increased or decreased over time, and that's quite useful.

In addition to my main use case, I use the dashboards feature regularly as well. If I want to have a higher view level of what cloud costs are within the estate, I would use the dashboards because I can look at multiple cloud accounts at once.

Cloudability positively impacts my organization by allowing for greater cost observability, which then drives better spending decisions and reduces costs. I've definitely seen those benefits from using the tool, and because of the breadth and depth of the features that the tool offers, you can get really specifically into minute costs. You can save money at the high level by looking across the entire estate, or you can really drill down to save specific costs, making cost saving the biggest benefit.

I can't share any specific metrics around cost savings or decision-making improvements because they'd be business sensitive, but through the right-sizing feature and the commitment manager feature, it's common to save anywhere from 10 to 20% of costs across an entire estate just by right-sizing instances to the right level and then purchasing commitments. Commitments save anywhere between 30 to 50% when executed, so if you're able to do that across a good number of instances, you can easily achieve 10% plus cost savings, which could be massive if your organization has a large cloud spend.

The best features Cloudability offers include the reporting feature, which is good because you can get very detailed, not just at the cloud account level, but you can drill down into particular resource usage. You can look at costs over granular periods of time, like one day or a few hours, and that's really good. The Views feature is also beneficial because lots of teams may use Cloudability within an organization, allowing users to segregate data to particular Views so they are only looking at what's relevant to them.

The Views feature in Cloudability is very useful for my teams because if you're in an organization that has hundreds or maybe even thousands of cloud accounts, different teams only operate in specific accounts rather than across all of them. A good way to use Views is to section data based on things such as business unit or which engineering team an individual is part of, so the data can thus be scoped down to specifically the engineer's ownership.

The IAM feature is something that we struggle with using. IBM, the company that runs Cloudability, released the Groups feature back in the summer of 2025. While Groups can be used in some parts of the tool, it can't be used across the entire tool. I've found that Groups is basically unusable because if it can't be used everywhere, you would have to run both group-based access control and direct user-based access control at the same time, which doesn't make any sense. The Groups feature has improved over time, but it's still not something we feel we can use on an everyday basis, so the IAM section remains an issue right now.

Most of the tool is very well-functioning and developed, and that's the only real improvement area that we've seen.

I've been using Cloudability for around two years.

Cloudability is very stable. We haven't noticed any downtime.

Cloudability's scalability is excellent because it can link with as few as one cloud account to thousands of cloud accounts, so there are no issues there.

The customer support from Cloudability is great. We regularly talk with IBM, and they help us a lot. I have no complaints at all. They're very good.

We've previously used the direct integrated FinOps features within cloud platforms. In AWS, there's the cost and accounts management section, and we've used similar functionalities in GCP and Azure. While those tools were good, Cloudability offers even deeper features and, because it's multi-cloud, it allows for costs to be seen in one place across all three cloud providers, which is the reason we wanted to use it.

Pricing and setup cost for Cloudability are good. Compared to the rest of the industry, they may be a little more expensive than some other FinOps tools, but that's to be expected because they have more functionality. So while it's a bit more expensive, you also get value for money because of the breadth and depth of the features.

I have seen a return on investment using Cloudability. As I mentioned before, it'd be very easy to save at least 10 to 20% costs from cloud spend just by utilizing the features of right-sizing or commitments management that Cloudability offers.

Pricing and setup cost for Cloudability are good. Compared to the rest of the industry, they may be a little more expensive than some other FinOps tools, but that's to be expected because they have more functionality. So while it's a bit more expensive, you also get value for money because of the breadth and depth of the features.

We didn't evaluate other vendors before choosing Cloudability; we simply evaluated using the built-in cloud provider tooling. The reason for this is that Cloudability is the market leader and has a strong reputation.

I would rate Cloudability a nine on a scale of 1 to 10.

I give it a nine because it's a very good tool with many different features, and the only thing that would push it up to a 10 is if the group IAM access control was more developed. However, that's a minor thing and doesn't affect the core functionality of the tool.

I would recommend using Cloudability and linking it with all cloud providers because the multi-cloud benefit really is great. IBM documentation is good, and their support service is brilliant as well. I would recommend using the tool.

What I really like is the centralized dashboard, and that we can customize it according to the customer's needs. The support from IBM is also fantastic.

They can improve the custom range of the network. Now they have just a one-year dashboard.

I have been using Cloudability for the past 7 months.

The stability is being improved.

The scalability is good.

They are helpful.

The initial setup is straightforward. You can use the APIs and you can connect to your cloud to the cloud availability. It's very easy. There is no market time. We can be accessed. You have the script that will generate on API. It will be integrated to the cloud with our infrastructure. I believe we get the reliability immediately.

We have done the POP for the multiple products as well. We used Postgres, and then NetApp. But we found that this is the best product because other companies have some limitations, such as cloud availability. So that is why we choose this product instead of other products.

I rate the overall solution a 9 out of 10.

We use the product to see the cloud costs. It helps our business, financial, and technology teams.

Cloudability has given us more visibility and insights that guide our decisions.

The tool helps us to resize on AWS correctly.

Cloudability needs to improve on data collection from cloud sources.

I have been using the product for three years.

I rate Cloudability's stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten.

The tool's deployment is easy and has documentation.

We have seen ROI with the tool's use. We saved 20 percent on our budget because of its actions.

Cloudability is a bit expensive.

You need to maintain contact with the company so they can guide you on using the product. I rate it a nine out of ten.

In my previous company, we used Cloudability for a lot of purposes, including reports related to cloud costs and reports based on resources. The solution was also useful for driving through the management groups to find what the cost is for each account, so the main use of Cloudability was related to costs and tagging purposes. In my previous company, we used to check if the resources were tagged so that they would appear in Cloudability, which helped us with the creation of the cost reports accurately.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to create reports and dashboards. Users can create dashboards in Cloudability by resource groups and accounts, which is very useful, especially considering its tagging features. Using tags in Cloudability, a user could create a report and dashboard if there was one account, and in that, there are multiple teams.

I don't exactly remember the problem with Cloudability. I can say that in my previous company, we could not efficiently make appropriate changes to the tags or resources in Cloudability, so we had to go for another solution, the name of which I can't remember, to help us get the aforementioned functionality. There was an area related to some cost implications that we couldn't work on with Cloudability in my previous company. In general, I feel Cloudability wasn't able to support many resources.

I have been using Cloudability for a year. I am a customer of the product.

I have never seen any stability issues with Cloudability. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a seven and a half out of ten.

There are many features that Cloudability does not support. If I look at a tool like Azure Resource Health, which I know offers a dashboard for cost analysis since I currently work with Azure, I see that it offers a wide range of features. The area related to security is not supported in Cloudability, but I am not sure if it was later deployed or not. Another problem with Cloudability stemmed from the fact that in my previous company, we had to deploy multiple things or features in the product by ourselves. There should be some room in Cloudability for the support of resources, indicating how many resource types it supports. Another area of concern in Cloudability is related to its ability to directly trigger action since its users couldn't directly trigger actions from Cloudability, though I am unsure if the latest version of the tool has that feature.

Only eight to ten people in my previous organization were using Cloudability, and later, we tried to get everyone in the company to use it. When we saw that we had to share the product's links and passwords with multiple users in my previous company, we decided that only the cloud governance team and managers should use Cloudability.

The product's initial setup phase was easy.

There are multiple features coming up in the dashboards provided by Azure for cost analysis. People can also consider other options like CloudHealth and CloudZero. I think that some features related to security are missing in Cloudability.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

In our organization, we operate on two different cloud platforms, namely AWS and Azure. We use Cloudability to manage costs and optimize resources across both clouds efficiently. This consolidates all cost-related information into a single platform, eliminating the need to check costs separately on Azure and AWS.

The convenience extends to our team's internal process, known as ITAC, which manages the financial aspects of these accounts. By integrating these accounts into Solution X, we streamline our operations and leverage the platform to update our product, view data, and generate reports.

For in-depth analysis, we focus on various functions within AWS, such as EC2 to Lambda. Cloudability allows us to monitor and understand Cloud Memory Metrics and Average Issue on a single platform.

One of the standout features of the solution is its groups and views functionality.

I would like the API functionality to improve. As a developer, I've found that the APIs could be more robust, providing insufficient information for effective automation efforts. Additionally, regarding memory metrics, the user interface (UI) seems rudimentary, especially compared to AWS. The UA doesn't align precisely with AWS; compared with AWS CloudWatch, it appears outdated. Enhancements in these aspects would significantly improve the overall user experience. Lastly, the update time after uploading data could also be improved.

We have been using the solution for the past three months.

The solution is highly-stable. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The solution is highly-scalable. It can work with large datasets. I rate it a nine out of ten. We have five users for the solution in our organization.

The customer support is good. They can be easily contacted.

In my previous organization I have worked with CloudWatch.

The initial setup is straightforward.

When the company opted for the solution a couple of years ago it was affordable.

It's an excellent tool, especially when dealing with multiple clouds. It streamlines the process, eliminating the need to check each cloud individually. The reporting and visualization aspects are well-organized, offering a clean view of everything from the day's data. The platform provides ample filters and dimensions, particularly useful in the finance domain for filtering based on business dimensions. Overall, it's a highly effective tool for managing and analyzing data across various cloud platforms.