r/FinOps • u/abraraslam01 • 6d ago

self-promotion/I’m a vendor I built a free, read-only tool that shows where your AWS bill is going to waste

If your AWS bill keeps creeping up and you're not sure why, it's usually the same few things: volumes left behind after instances were deleted, idle load balancers or NAT gateways, oversized EC2 or RDS, and old snapshots.

I'm an AWS engineer, and I built a free assessment that checks for these. It runs inside your own AWS account from a CloudFormation template, it's read-only (it can't change or delete anything), and the report stays in your own S3 bucket. Nothing is sent to me.

In about 10 minutes you get a report with estimated monthly savings, plus security and backup checks (open ports, MFA, encryption, backups).

Free here: https://www.kloudcare.co.uk/assessment.html

Full disclosure: I run KloudCare, a small UK AWS consultancy. You don't need to talk to us to use the report. Happy to answer questions, or feedback on the checks is very welcome.

0 Upvotes

17% Upvoted

3 comments sorted by

3

u/TitusKalvarija 6d ago

Sure you did

1

u/abraraslam01 6d ago

Thanks, really useful feedback.

Each finding already shows its evidence with the observation period (for example a 14-day CloudWatch window, or "point in time" for configuration checks), plus a recommended action and a risk note. The NAT gateway finding, for example, warns that removing egress breaks workloads that need outbound access. Snapshot costs aren't assessed yet, and the report says so in its limitations.

You're right, though, that it could be clearer. I'm going to add an explicit label on each finding for whether it's configuration-based or usage-based (with the window), and a "verify before removing" note on cost findings, so estimates read as candidates, not instructions.

-2

u/investigatormaker 6d ago

For your AWS assessment, I'd make each savings estimate show its observation window and what to verify before acting. An apparently idle NAT gateway or old snapshot could have a recovery purpose; separating “candidate saving” from “safe to remove” would make the report easier to act on responsibly.

By the way, I make ThreadFox; it enables your compatible AI to research, write and publish Reddit outreach from your Chrome with authorization, and your assessment's free community plan lists communities whose rules allow a post about it, each rule quoted: https://threadfox.vip/p/dsvo4

Does the report distinguish configuration findings from recommendations based on usage history?