Cloud Cost Optimization
Nobody sets out to overspend on cloud. A bill is a pile of small, individually reasonable decisions: an instance sized under deadline, an environment kept running for a launch that shipped months ago, snapshots nobody is sure it's safe to delete.
This work happens inside your accounts, not in a spreadsheet about them, and the goal is spend that matches what your systems require. That is not always the same as spending less. Some of what we find is pure waste: unattached volumes, environments running around the clock, a cluster provisioned for a launch that came and went. The rest is trade-offs, and we name them as trade-offs. An oversized database can be cheap insurance. An archive tier is the wrong place for data you still read.
We don't promise a percentage, because nobody honestly can. What's available depends on your architecture, your workloads, and how the accounts have been run. What we commit to is a concrete list of opportunities with real numbers from your bill, the engineering work to act on the ones you choose, and the tagging, schedules, and reporting that keep spend visible after we leave.
Where bills grow
There is rarely one big mistake. A growing bill is usually six small mechanisms compounding quietly. A review takes soundings on each of them against your actual usage data.
Cost work we take on
AWS cost optimization
The usual suspects: EC2 sized for a peak that happens twice a year, gp2 volumes nobody migrated to gp3, NAT gateway data processing, cross-AZ traffic showing up as an unlabeled line item. We work from your Cost and Usage Report rather than the console summary, because that's where the surprises live. Commitments get reviewed too, since a Savings Plan bought for last year's architecture is often paying for the wrong things.
Azure cost optimization
Azure bills fail differently. Lift-and-shift VMs still sized like the datacenter boxes they replaced, orphaned managed disks and public IPs left behind by deleted machines, Log Analytics ingesting everything at premium rates. We review reservations and Hybrid Benefit eligibility, and untangle subscription sprawl so cost has somewhere sensible to land.
Cloud cost audit
A read-only pass through your billing data and your accounts, ending in an itemized set of findings: the resource, what it costs per month, what changing it involves, and what could go wrong. Not a themes-and-recommendations deck. Any line of it can be handed to an engineer and acted on.
Resource rightsizing
Sizes chosen under deadline pressure become permanent. We look at actual utilization over weeks, including the spikes, and resize with headroom for failover and growth rather than to the prettiest average. Sometimes the right recommendation is to leave a resource alone, because an undersized production database costs more than it ever saved.
Idle resource identification
Every mature account has them: load balancers routing to nothing, unattached volumes, stopped instances still paying for storage, the test cluster from an experiment that ended in March. Finding them is the easy part. The real work is tracing ownership so deletion is a decision rather than a gamble; nothing goes until someone who understands the system confirms it can.
Development environment scheduling
Non-production environments commonly run 168 hours a week for teams that work 40 of them. We automate stop and start on schedules the teams control, with an override that takes one command, because a schedule people can't escape gets deleted. Environments that hold state or run overnight jobs don't fit this pattern; those get downsized instead.
Storage optimization
Storage only ever accumulates. Snapshots of servers retired years ago, logs kept forever by default, buckets nobody can name an owner for. We set lifecycle and retention rules that match what your compliance obligations say, and we're careful with archive tiers: cheap to fill, expensive to read, and wrong for anything you still touch.
Cost allocation and tagging
You can't ask anyone to own a cost you can't attribute to them. We design a tagging standard small enough that people follow it, and enforce it in Terraform and account policies instead of a wiki page. The awkward remainder gets handled in the open: shared networking, support fees, and the cluster four teams use will never tag cleanly, so we allocate them by an explicit rule everyone can see.
FinOps and cost visibility
Most cost dashboards get opened twice. We build reporting that engineers and finance both trust because it comes from the same data: cost per service and per team, unit costs where your business has a meaningful unit, and anomaly alerts tuned so a notification means something. Then we help you set a review cadence with named owners, because visibility nobody acts on is just a prettier bill.
Who this is for
- The bill has doubled since last year, and attributing it to a team, a product, or a decision is pure guesswork.
- Finance and engineering argue about cloud spend using two different spreadsheets, and neither side trusts either one.
- You bought reserved instances or a savings plan years ago and nobody has checked coverage since.
- Development and staging environments run every hour of the year for teams that work business hours.
- You're heading into a fundraise or a profitability push, and infrastructure cost just became a board question.
The course of an engagement
The full engagement modelBilling data first
Cost Explorer summaries flatter; the Cost and Usage Report doesn't. We go through the raw data read-only and map where the money goes before anything gets touched.
Findings you can act on
You get a list ordered by monthly cost against effort and risk, with specific resources named. You choose what's worth doing; some findings are correctly ignored, and we'll tell you which ones we'd ignore.
Implementation
Changes go through your repos and pipelines like any other engineering work. Riskier ones are staged and reversible, and each is verified against the next bill rather than declared done at merge.
Making it hold
Schedules, tag enforcement, budgets, and reporting land before we leave, along with a review cadence your team runs. A one-time cleanup with no follow-through is a subscription to doing this again next year.
Questions we get
- Can you guarantee savings?
- No, and be wary of anyone who says yes. What can be saved depends entirely on what we find: reserved-capacity coverage, idle resources, storage lifecycle gaps, over-provisioned databases. Some environments have plenty of that; some are already tight. A review tells you which one yours is, with numbers attached, before you commit to any remediation work.
- What do you need from us to start a cost review?
- Read-only access and someone who knows the workloads. On AWS that means a cross-account role; on Azure, a PIM-scoped Reader assignment. We never take long-lived credentials. Beyond access, an hour with an engineer who can explain what the expensive systems do. That context separates safe savings from cuts that break production. Billing exports help but are not required to start.
- Will cost work slow our engineers down?
- It should not, and we structure engagements so it does not. Findings arrive as pull requests in your repositories, with the reasoning written down, and your team reviews and merges on its own schedule. Nobody sits in your standups. The main demand on engineers is review time, plus the occasional question about why a system is sized the way it is.
- How is cost work priced?
- A cost review is fixed-scope with a defined end, so you know the price before we start. Follow-on build work runs at a weekly rate. And no percentage-of-savings arrangements: they create the wrong incentives.
Pricing shapes and numbers are on Pricing; NDAs, timezones, and offboarding are on How we work.
What we typically work with
When the engagement ends
- Every change lives in your repos and your accounts. The schedules, policies, and dashboards are yours to run and modify without us.
- You get a findings log recording what changed, what we deliberately left alone, and why, so the next engineer doesn't re-litigate settled decisions.
- Commitments and usage drift, so some teams have us back quarterly to re-check coverage and new spend. That's optional; the engagement is designed to end.
Problems this maps to
AWS costs growing without clear visibility
A growing company runs several environments across a handful of AWS accounts. Old instances are still up, several are oversized, storage only accumulates, and the bill has doubled in eighteen months. Finance sees one number; engineering sees none of it. Nobody owns the spend.
Field notes on this
Ask for a cost review.
A short email about your setup and what's not working is the best start. We'll say plainly whether we can help, and what it would take.
hello@farzanfa.com · +91 88918 87223 · Kerala, India · working worldwide · reply within one business day