Cloud Provider
Service Name
Inefficiency Type
Clear filters
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Showing
1234
out of
1234
inefficiencies
Filter
:
Filter
x
Suboptimal Use of Intel-Based Instances in OpenSearch
Other
Cloud Provider
AWS
Service Name
AWS OpenSearch
Inefficiency Type
Suboptimal Instance Selection

AWS Graviton processors are designed to deliver better price-performance than comparable Intel-based instances, often reducing cost by 20–30% at equivalent workload performance. OpenSearch domains running on older Intel-based families consume more spend without providing additional capability. Since Graviton-powered instance types are functionally identical in features and performance for OpenSearch, continuing to run on Intel-based clusters represents unnecessary inefficiency.

Inefficient Use of Job Clusters in Databricks Workflows
Other
Cloud Provider
Databricks
Service Name
Databricks Workflows
Inefficiency Type
Suboptimal Cluster Configuration

When multiple tasks within a workflow are executed on separate job clusters — despite having similar compute requirements — organizations incur unnecessary overhead. Each cluster must initialize independently, adding latency and cost. This results in inefficient resource usage, especially for workflows that could reuse the same cluster across tasks. Consolidating tasks onto a single job cluster where feasible reduces start-up time and avoids duplicative compute charges.

Billing Account Migration Creating Emergency List-Price Purchases in Google Cloud Marketplace
Other
Cloud Provider
GCP
Service Name
Inefficiency Type
Subscription Disruption Due to Billing Migration

Changing a Google Cloud billing account can unintentionally break existing Marketplace subscriptions. If entitlements are tied to the original billing account, the subscription may fail or become invalid, prompting teams to make urgent, direct purchases of the same services, often at higher list or on-demand rates. These emergency purchases bypass previously negotiated Marketplace pricing and can result in significantly higher short-term costs. The issue is common during reorganizations, mergers, or changes to billing hierarchy and is often not discovered until after costs have spiked.

Lifecycle Visibility Gaps Inflating Renewal Costs in Azure Marketplace
Other
Cloud Provider
Azure
Service Name
Azure Marketplace
Inefficiency Type
Contract Lifecycle Mismanagement

When Marketplace contracts or subscriptions expire or change without visibility, Azure may automatically continue billing at higher on-demand or list prices. These lapses often go unnoticed due to lack of proactive tracking, ownership, or renewal alerts, resulting in substantial cost increases. The issue is amplified when contract records are siloed across procurement, finance, and engineering teams, with no centralized mechanism to monitor entitlement status or reconcile expected versus actual billing.

Hidden Marketplace Spend Preventing Commitment Optimization
Other
Cloud Provider
AWS
Service Name
AWS Marketplace
Inefficiency Type
Commitment Misalignment

In many organizations, AWS Marketplace purchases are lumped into a single consolidated billing line without visibility into individual vendors. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to identify which Marketplace spend is eligible to count toward the EDP cap. As a result, teams may either overspend on direct AWS services to fulfill their commitment unnecessarily or miss the opportunity to right-size new commitments based on existing Marketplace purchases. In both cases, the absence of vendor-level detail hinders optimization.

Transactable vs. Non-Transactable Confusion in Azure Marketplace
Other
Cloud Provider
Azure
Service Name
Azure Marketplace
Inefficiency Type
Commitment Misalignment

Azure Marketplace offers two types of listings: transactable and non-transactable. Only transactable purchases contribute toward a customer’s MACC commitment. However, many teams mistakenly assume that all Marketplace spend counts, leading to missed opportunities to burn down commitments and risking budget inefficiencies. Selecting a non-transactable listing, when a transactable equivalent exists, can result in identical services being acquired at higher effective cost due to lost discounts. This confusion is exacerbated when procurement and engineering teams do not coordinate or consult Microsoft's guidance.

Double Counting on EDP Commitments
Other
Cloud Provider
AWS
Service Name
AWS Marketplace
Inefficiency Type
Commitment Misalignment

Many organizations mistakenly believe that all AWS Marketplace spend automatically contributes to their EDP commitment. In reality, only certain Marketplace transactions, those involving EDP-eligible vendors and transactable SKUs, will count towards a portion of their EDP commitment. This misunderstanding can lead to double counting: forecasting based on the assumption that both native AWS usage and Marketplace purchases will fully draw down the commitment. If the assumptions are incorrect, the organization risks failing to meet its EDP threshold, incurring penalties or losing expected discounts.

Unnecessarily High Recording Granularity in AWS Config
Other
Cloud Provider
AWS
Service Name
AWS Config
Inefficiency Type
Suboptimal Recording Configuration

Organizations frequently inherit continuous recording by default (e.g., through landing zones) without validating the business need for per-change granularity across all resource types and environments. In change-heavy accounts (ephemeral resources, CI/CD churn, autoscaling), continuous mode drives very high CIR volumes with limited additional operational value. Selecting periodic recording for lower-risk resource types and/or non-production environments can maintain necessary visibility while reducing CIR volume and cost. Recorder settings are account/region scoped, so you can apply continuous in production where required and periodic elsewhere.

Suboptimal Architecture Selection in AWS Fargate
Compute
Cloud Provider
AWS
Service Name
AWS Fargate
Inefficiency Type
Suboptimal Architecture Selection

AWS Fargate supports both x86 and Graviton2 (ARM64) CPU architectures, but by default, many workloads continue to run on x86. Graviton2 delivers significantly better price-performance, especially for stateless, scale-out container workloads. Teams that fail to configure task definitions with the `ARM64` architecture miss out on meaningful efficiency gains. Because this setting is not enabled automatically and is often overlooked, it results in higher compute costs for functionally equivalent workloads.

Excessive KMS Charges from Missing S3 Bucket Key Configuration
Storage
Cloud Provider
AWS
Service Name
AWS S3
Inefficiency Type
Misconfiguration

S3 buckets configured with SSE-KMS but without Bucket Keys generate a separate KMS request for each object operation. This behavior results in disproportionately high KMS request costs for data-intensive workloads such as analytics, backups, or frequently accessed objects. Bucket Keys allow S3 to cache KMS data keys at the bucket level, reducing the volume of KMS calls and cutting encryption costs—often with no impact on security or performance.

There are no inefficiency matches the current filters.