Cloud FinOps
Most estates that have never been reviewed carry 20-30% waste. We find where yours sits, put a number on every recommendation, and hand you a plan your own team can execute. No report that disappears into a drawer.
Discuss a cost auditA line-by-line breakdown across AWS, Azure and GCP: idle and orphaned resources, oversized instances, forgotten environments, storage tiers nobody reviewed, and egress nobody predicted. Every finding mapped to the team generating it.
Resource requests compared against what workloads actually consume, node pool sizing, autoscaling that responds to real demand, and the gap between what you reserved and what you used.
Reserved Instances, Savings Plans and committed use discounts modelled against your genuine baseline, plus where Spot and preemptible capacity is safe to adopt and where it is not.
Tagging and allocation so spend maps to the teams generating it, with the reporting to keep it honest. Attribution is what stops the bill creeping back up.
“The bill went up again and nobody can explain why.” The invoice arrives as one number, the trend is upward, and the answer to what changed is somewhere in a year of individually reasonable decisions.
“We know we are wasting money, we just do not know where.” Everyone suspects the non-production environments, or the old cluster, or the storage. Nobody has had a clear week to find out.
“Finance asked which team is responsible for which spend.” There is no tagging discipline, so the honest answer is that the platform costs what it costs and the split is guesswork.
Cloud spend rarely increases through a single bad decision. It increases through many reasonable ones: a generous resource request copied from another team’s manifest, a test environment created for a migration that finished last year, an instance type chosen when the workload looked different, a retention policy nobody revisited.
None of that is visible on a monthly invoice that arrives as one number. By the time someone is asked to explain the trend, the individual decisions are a year old and nobody remembers making them.
A cost audit reverses that. It reattaches the spend to the decisions that produced it, which is what makes the savings both findable and durable.
Fixed scope and a published price, so you know the cost before we start.
| Engagement | Price | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Cloud & Kubernetes Cost Audit | from EUR 3,500 | 1 week |
| Audit + implementation | from EUR 8,500 | 2-3 weeks |
| FinOps retainer | from EUR 950 / month | ongoing |
| Advisory and smaller scoped work | EUR 100 / hour | - |
All prices exclude VAT. The audit price depends on estate size and number of accounts; a single-account estate sits at the bottom of the range and we confirm the figure before starting, not after. The retainer is for teams that want the bill kept honest after the audit: a monthly review of new spend, a quarterly re-forecast against your commitments, and a report the budget owner can take to finance.
One week, fixed price, written deliverable. It answers three questions.
Where is the money going? A breakdown across your cloud accounts and clusters, mapped to the teams and services generating it. This step alone tends to surprise people, because the largest line item is frequently not the one anybody was worried about.
What can be cut without anyone noticing? The unambiguous waste first: orphaned volumes and unattached IPs, idle load balancers, non-production environments running nights and weekends, over-provisioned resource requests, storage sitting in the wrong tier, snapshots retained past any policy. Each item carries an estimated monthly saving and an execution effort.
What needs a decision? The changes that trade something real: commitment purchases that reduce flexibility, Spot adoption that requires workloads to tolerate interruption, retention reductions that affect what you can investigate later. These are presented as choices with the trade-off stated, not as recommendations.
You receive a prioritised remediation roadmap with projected savings attached, a tagging and allocation scheme so spend maps to teams going forward, and a walkthrough with the engineers and the budget owner together. That last part matters more than it sounds: most cost programmes stall because the people who can make the changes and the person who cares about the number are never in the same room.
A good fit if you spend somewhere between EUR 5,000 and EUR 100,000 a month on cloud, your platform has grown for a few years without anyone owning the bill, and there is at least one engineer who can act on a plan once they have one. Typically that is a scale-up where the infrastructure outgrew the person who originally set it up, or a team where the CTO is still the de facto platform owner and has no week to spare on this.
Not the right fit if your bill is under about EUR 3,000 a month. The audit would not pay for itself and we would rather say so now than take the work — at that size the obvious wins are usually findable from your provider’s own cost console in an afternoon.
Also not a fit if you need a supplier with a procurement portal, a security questionnaire cycle and a named account manager. We are a small firm and you would be buying overhead we do not have. Larger consultancies do that properly and charge accordingly, and for some organisations that is genuinely the right call.
Independent FinOps consultants for AWS, Azure, GCP and Kubernetes. A fixed-price cost audit from EUR 3,500 that typically pays for itself within the first months.
Get in touch