Assess. Assure. Act, with a human in the loop.
The method behind CloudOps Assurance. We publish it because a finding is worth exactly as much as the reasoning behind it, and you should be able to check ours before you act.
A person signs every finding, and that is the slow part on purpose
The assessment engine is fast and thorough. It is also confidently wrong often enough that sending raw machine output to somebody's client would be reckless.
So every finding passes a certified architect first. They verify the cause and check how the data was collected. They check the figure against what you actually pay. And they check the recommended action is safe in your environment. Findings that fail the check are removed.
That is why a report takes longer than a scan, and why you can hand one over without reading it first.
Three things we will not do. We will not change anything without approval. We will not act on a finding because a model or engine is confident. And we will not put a number in a report if we cannot show you how we reached it.
How a finding gets priced
A saving only means something against the rate somebody is genuinely paying, so that is the rate we use.
Licensing findings are priced against your own agreement. The two are frequently different, and the difference is usually the whole argument.
Infrastructure findings are priced against the specific configuration in front of us. Cloud providers publish headline discount figures for committed usage, and those headlines almost always describe a best case on a long commitment for one particular configuration. We price the actual size, region and term.
If a finding cannot be priced honestly, it is recorded as a risk. Where a report shows a range, the range is real.
How this compares with the tools already built into your cloud
The providers ship capable first party tooling and it comes with the licence. We read from several of those tools ourselves. Here is what each covers, so you can judge whether you need anything beyond them.
| Approach | Cost | Security | Compliance | Read together | Client report | Signed off |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optimizer365 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Rebrandable | Architect |
| Native cost management | One cloud | Partial | No | No | Export only | None |
| Native security scoring | No | Yes | Partial | No | Dashboard | None |
| Native compliance manager | No | Partial | Yes | No | Dashboard | None |
| Admin centre licence reports | Partial | No | No | No | CSV export | None |
| A manual review by your own team | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | If written | Your team |
This comparison covers scope and output.
When you should not buy this
Being straight about where we add very little is cheaper than an assessment that finds nothing worth the fee.
One small environment with one administrator
If the same person owns licensing and infrastructure, the built in reports plus a focused afternoon will get you most of the way. Take the free assessment, use what it finds, buy nothing.
You only need a rough number for a budget conversation
The native cost tools give you that today at no cost. We become useful when the number has to stand up in front of somebody who was not in the room.
Somebody already does this full time
If a person owns commitment coverage and right sizing as their actual job, our optimisation work will find less. The compliance and readiness assessments may still be worth a look.
Start with something you already understand
The quickest way to judge the reasoning is to point it at an environment where you can check the answer yourself.
Read only access. Nothing installed. You can stop at the report.