Sign inRequest access
FINOPS RECOMMENDATION ENGINE

Right-size your cloud investment.

Three sizing views side-by-side. Four named recommendations with transparent scoring. Multi-cluster guidance when platform limits hit. Infrastructure and licensing costs quantified.

Get startedBack to overview
What you get

The full sizing tradeoff — in one view.

Three sizing views

As-is (Lift & Shift preserving current ratios), rationalised (industry-standard 1:4 CPU oversubscription), and custom override. See host count, utilisation, and cost implications of each.

Four named recommendations

Balanced, Lowest Cost, High Density, High Resilience. Each shows exactly why it scored the way it did across cost, utilisation, risk, licensing, and blast radius.

Multi-cluster advisory

When sizing exceeds platform maximums (OCVS 64 hosts/cluster, AVS 16, GCVE 32), Aurithm recommends how to split — or which small source clusters should consolidate to meet minimums.

VCF licensing cost visibility

Post-Broadcom, VCF licensing is a real line item. Aurithm quantifies annual VCF cost based on cores and configurable per-core pricing, with clear disclaimers about negotiated rates.

Why this matters

The cheapest option creates unacceptable blast radius. The most resilient one doubles your bill.

Sizing a target cloud estate isn't simple math. It's a multi-variable optimisation problem, and picking the wrong shape either overspends by seven figures annually or under-sizes you into chronic performance issues. Aurithm's FinOps engine scores every candidate shape across cost, utilisation, risk, licensing, and blast radius — weighted by the priority preset you pick (Balanced, Cost-Optimised, Resilience-Optimised, Licensing-Optimised, or High-Density). Every number cites its source. Vendor-published overhead values. Platform minimums and maximums. No invented optimism.

Scope

What it does — and what it doesn't.

It does
  • ✓Produces Lift & Shift, Rationalised, and Override sizings side by side
  • ✓Ranks four named recommendations with transparent composite scoring
  • ✓Flags platform minimum/maximum breaches with split-cluster advice
  • ✓Quantifies VCF licensing cost per core, annually
  • ✓Uses vendor-published ESXi and vSAN management overhead per shape family
It doesn't
  • –Negotiate your VCF license on your behalf
  • –Hide the tradeoffs behind a single 'recommended' number
  • –Guess at utilisation — you provide CPU and memory targets
Who uses this
Cloud architectsDefending sizing to review boards with transparent scoring.
Capacity plannersBalancing cost against performance risk.
FinOps leadsQuantifying infrastructure and licensing spend.
Executive sponsorsSigning off on seven-figure annual commitments.

Compare three sizing views in under 30 seconds.

See host counts, utilisation, blast radius, and VCF cost side by side. Every number cites its source.

Request access