Skip to content
All services
FinOps & Cost Reduction

Cost reduction with a number attached to every lever.

A 10-business-day audit that ends with a prioritized reduction plan — every lever has a name, an owner, an estimated impact in your currency, and the effort to land it. We do not sell you a SaaS dashboard. We give you a plan your engineering team can execute next week.

The 10-day FinOps Audit below is the cross-cutting engagement when scope is wider than warehouse — compute, storage, networking, Kubernetes, multi-cloud.

Where the money usually goes

Every cloud bill we audit has a different shape, but the levers cluster. Eight out of ten audits surface at least four of the following.

  • Compute over-provisioning. Instances sized for peak that runs 2% of the month. Autoscaling thresholds that never actually scale down. Dev / staging that runs 24×7 instead of business hours.
  • Commitment under-utilisation. Reserved Instances or Savings Plans that no longer match your usage shape — committed in year one, drifted in year two, hemorrhaging in year three.
  • Idle and orphaned assets. Unattached EBS volumes, abandoned load balancers, unused Elastic IPs, snapshot sprawl, idle Kubernetes nodes that never drained, NAT gateways for traffic that no longer flows.
  • Storage tiering. Hot tier billing on data nobody reads. S3 / GCS lifecycle policies missing or misconfigured. Snapshots retained indefinitely because nobody owns the policy.
  • Data egress. Cross-region and cross-cloud transfer that comes from an old architectural decision nobody remembers. VPC peering vs public path. CDN cache-hit ratios below acceptable.
  • Warehouse spend. Snowflake credit attribution by warehouse / role / query, BigQuery slot economics, Databricks DBU drivers. The five most expensive query patterns and the rewrite for each.
  • Kubernetes economics. Spot vs on-demand mix, cluster autoscaler hysteresis, namespace-level resource quotas, pod request / limit drift, node-utilisation headroom.
  • Anomaly drift. The bill that crept up 11% last quarter and nobody noticed. Per-team allocation, showback, and the alert thresholds that would have caught it on day three.

What you receive on day 10

  • Cost decomposition by service, team, and product line — even where your billing tags don't cooperate.
  • Top-20 waste sources ranked by impact, with named owners and effort estimate.
  • Commitment model with the recommended commit amount, term, payment model, and a sensitivity table.
  • 30 / 60 / 90-day execution plan separating quick wins (week 1) from architectural changes (quarter 2+).
  • Monitoring blueprint — what to watch, where to put the alerts, and how to keep cost from regressing after we leave.
  • Allocation / showback design if your billing tags need an overhaul before per-team chargeback is feasible.

India-specific considerations

Indian cloud bills carry quirks that global FinOps playbooks miss — region-specific pricing across MUM / DEL / HYD, GST treatment on cloud spend, Reserved Instance economics under INR-denominated commitment, BFSI / PSU compliance constraints that block certain rightsizing levers, and currency-volatility hedging for USD-billed SaaS components. We address these explicitly when the engagement is India-led.

What outcomes look like

We do not promise a specific savings percentage publicly — outcomes vary too widely by starting state. Patterns documented in published industry research (Flexera State of the Cloud, FinOps Foundation) and observed in the founder's prior engagements: 15 – 30% on commodity compute via rightsizing + commitment correction, 40 – 70% on idle / orphaned assets (because the baseline is zero utilisation), 10 – 25% on warehouse spend via query and warehouse-tier rewrites, 30 – 60% on Kubernetes via spot + bin-packing — net of effort. The Audit deliverable carries our estimate of your specific number, with the reasoning shown.

How we engage

Fixed fee, 100% upfront, 10 business days. Read-only credentials on your billing account and cloud accounts. We do not move money around for you — we hand your engineering team the plan and step away. Most clients identify savings exceeding the audit fee within the first quarter, subject to assessment of your specific stack.

Retainer follow-on

If your team wants ongoing FinOps governance — quarterly reviews, commitment-tracker maintenance, cost-anomaly investigation — we offer it as a Cloud Platform Management retainer (Contact for pricing, cancel any quarter). Most clients do not need this; the one-shot Audit is sufficient to recover the fee and instrument the rest.

Try the free quick-check first

If you want a rough estimate before scoping the full audit, the FinOps quick-check is a 2-minute interactive estimator. Six questions, public industry benchmarks applied client-side (no spend numbers leave your browser), output is an indicative monthly waste range with the named levers to investigate. Useful for the "is this worth scoping?" decision.

Questions buyers actually ask

How does the 10-day FinOps Audit relate to the Cloud Cost X-Ray? When do I want which? ▾
If your cost pain is specifically the data warehouse — BigQuery, Snowflake, Databricks, Redshift — start with the Cloud Cost X-Ray. It is the warehouse-only review, currently running as a free 90-min live session through Q3 2026 (reverts to a 5-day $100 paid diagnostic afterward, credited 100% to any Execution engagement). The 10-day FinOps Audit is the cross-cutting engagement: compute, storage, networking, Kubernetes, multi-cloud, plus warehouse at a lighter cut. Pick the Audit when scope is wider than warehouse, or when warehouse is one of several known cost centres.
Do you require us to install a FinOps SaaS tool like CloudHealth, Vantage, or Apptio as part of the engagement? ▾
No. The Audit runs against your existing billing exports and cloud-account telemetry. If you already use CloudHealth / Vantage / Cloudability, we read from it; if you don't, we don't require you to procure one. The deliverable is a deck, a sheet, and a meeting — not a dashboard subscription. If the Audit finds that ongoing tooling would pay for itself, that recommendation lands in the 90-day plan with the named vendor options, but the buying decision is yours.
What's the realistic savings range — and how do you arrive at the estimate? ▾
Patterns documented in published industry research (Flexera State of the Cloud, FinOps Foundation) and observed in the founder's prior engagements: 15 – 30% on commodity compute via rightsizing and commitment correction, 40 – 70% on idle / orphaned assets, 10 – 25% on warehouse spend via query and tier rewrites, 30 – 60% on Kubernetes via spot and bin-packing — net of effort. Your specific number is built bottom-up: every lever in the top-20 carries an impact estimate with the reasoning shown, summed and discounted for execution risk. We do not publish a single headline percentage because starting state varies too widely.
Can you work with a regulated workload (BFSI, PSU, healthcare) where certain rightsizing levers are restricted? ▾
Yes. Regulated estates have constraints we account for explicitly: residency-pinned regions, audit-mandated retention, restricted access for cost-engineering, vendor-list constraints on spot or preemptible compute, and approval workflows that block tactical changes. The Audit treats those as fixed inputs and routes the savings model through the levers that are actually available — typically storage tiering, commitment planning, idle cleanup, and egress optimisation rather than aggressive rightsizing. India-led BFSI / PSU engagements get the additional layer of GST treatment and INR-denominated commitment economics.
Do you handle multi-cloud (AWS + GCP, AWS + Azure, three-cloud)? ▾
Yes. The Audit covers the full bill regardless of how many cloud providers are in it. Multi-cloud typically surfaces a different lever set — cross-cloud egress, duplicated platform investments (two observability stacks, two data warehouses), and commitment fragmentation across providers. We do not push consolidation as a default; the deliverable names the cost of the multi-cloud posture and leaves the architectural call with you.
What's the difference between your audit and a vendor's free cost review? ▾
Vendor cost reviews — AWS Trusted Advisor, GCP Recommender, Azure Advisor, partner-led TCO assessments — are tuned to the vendor's commercial interest. They surface commitment opportunities and rightsizing on first-party services. They do not name dbt model fan-out, cross-cloud egress, third-party SaaS waste, or workloads that should leave the vendor's platform entirely. The Audit is independent, paid, and includes the levers a vendor will not raise.
Who actually executes the recommended changes — you or our team? ▾
Your team, by default. The deliverable is the plan, not the labour. Most clients ship the quick-wins (week 1 of the 90-day plan) themselves within 30 days. If a specific lever — a warehouse re-architecture, a Kubernetes spot migration, an egress redesign — is worth shipping as a follow-on Execution engagement, that is scoped separately at fixed fee. The Audit fee is not credited to Execution (unlike the X-Ray); the two are independent commercial units.
Who this is for

Does any of this sound familiar?

If it does, the next section explains how the engagement model is structured to address each one.

Your cloud bill grew 40% last quarter. Engineering says it's growth. Finance wants a line-item breakdown. Nobody can produce one.

Cost decomposition by service, team, and product line is a deliverable from the 10-day audit — even when your billing tags don't cooperate. The top-20 waste sources come back with named owners and effort estimates.

You bought Reserved Instances two years ago. Usage shape has shifted. You're now committed to capacity you don't fully consume.

Commitment modelling is a core audit output: recommended commit amount, term, payment model, and a sensitivity table showing what happens if usage changes. Corrections are sized for your actual trajectory, not the shape you were in at purchase.

Dev and staging environments run 24×7. Nobody owns the policy. The bill for non-production is 40% of total spend.

Idle and orphaned asset cleanup — including always-on non-production — typically lands in week 1 of the 90-day plan. These are fast fixes: a schedule policy, a stop/start Lambda, an autoscaling threshold. No architectural change required.

Your warehouse vendor did a free cost review. They found savings. Strangely, all the savings were from buying more of their product.

The audit is independent. It includes levers a vendor won't raise: dbt model fan-out driving query cost, cross-cloud egress from an old architecture decision, third-party SaaS duplication, and workloads that should leave the current platform entirely.

The bill crept up 11% last quarter. Nobody noticed until month-end. There are no alerts watching for this.

The monitoring blueprint — what to watch, where to put the alerts, and how to prevent regression — is a day-10 deliverable. Cost anomaly detection is not an add-on; it's part of the output so the problem doesn't recur after the engagement ends.

The Migration Engine

One discipline, every engagement.

Every migration runs the same six-stage pipeline: Inventory, Plan, Convert, Validate, Reconcile, Report. Human sign-off gates enforce the stage boundaries that matter.

STAGE 1 INVENTORY Read-only sweep STAGE 2 PLAN Wave + dependency map HUMAN GATE STAGE 3 CONVERT Rule library + handlers STAGE 4 VALIDATE Checksums + diffs STAGE 5 RECONCILE Daily diffs, parallel run STAGE 6 REPORT Co-signed cutover doc Scope sign-off required before conversion begins
Read how the engine works stage by stage
Why us

The rest of the market vs. what we do differently.

Every promise in this table lives in the contract, not the pitch deck.

Dimension Traditional T&M SI Replatform
Pricing model Time & materials — final cost unknown at project start Fixed-fee against a written Appendix A — no surprises
Staffing Senior pitched, junior delivered — bench economics drive the swap The engineer on the first call is the engineer in the repo
Validation Verbal sign-off or sampling — "it looks right" Deterministic row counts, checksums, query diffs — signed artefact you keep
Scope creep Absorbed into T&M — change orders often verbal, billed later Anything out-of-scope is a written Change Order before work begins
Timeline Months of ramp, discovery, re-discovery, re-scoping Fixed Discovery Sprint produces inventory + wave plan before you commit to execution
How to engage

Start with a free read, then go deeper.

Two free tools to size the problem, a warehouse-specific cost review, and a full 10-day audit for cross-cutting scope. Each step is a standalone deliverable.

01 · Free

FinOps Quick-Check

Free
2 minutes · no email

Six questions. Returns a monthly waste range and named levers — platform-aware across AWS, GCP, Azure, Snowflake, Databricks, and BigQuery. Useful for sizing whether the problem warrants a full audit.

Run the Quick-Check
02 · Warehouse review

Cloud Cost X-Ray

Free
through Q3 2026 · 90-min live session

A live working session on your warehouse bill specifically — BigQuery, Snowflake, Databricks, Redshift. Named levers, savings model, 30/60/90-day plan. After Q3 2026 reverts to $100, credited 100% to any execution engagement.

Send me your bill
03 · Full audit

10-Day FinOps Audit

Fixed-fee
₹2–3 L / $3–5k · 10 business days

Cross-cutting cost audit: compute, storage, networking, Kubernetes, multi-cloud, warehouse. Top-20 waste sources, commitment model, 30/60/90-day execution plan, monitoring blueprint, allocation / showback design.

Book the FinOps Audit
04 · Ongoing

Platform Management Retainer

Contact
scope-quoted · quarterly auto-renew

Ongoing FinOps governance — quarterly cost reviews, commitment-tracker maintenance, cost-anomaly investigation, plus the broader managed-services retainer if your platform needs it.

Talk to us
Founder-led delivery

The people doing the work.

Yash Maheshwari
Founder · Replatform

Cloud and data platform engineer with 6+ years across migrations, lakehouse architecture, FinOps, and managed platform operations on AWS, GCP, Azure, Snowflake, Databricks, BigQuery, and Redshift. The engineer on your first call is the engineer in your repo — no bench hand-offs, no junior substitutions.

LinkedIn GitHub
Not ready to talk?

Download the Migration Readiness Checklist

Planning a cloud migration alongside a cost reduction programme? This checklist covers what to have in order before starting — including cost constraints, billing tag hygiene, and the FinOps governance questions to resolve before execution.

Get the checklist