We cut cloud bills by fixing
the architecture.

Across our audits the median first-90-day reduction is around a third of the bill, with mature, already-tuned accounts closer to 15% and neglected ones past 50%. The savings come from four places: retiring zombie resources, rightsizing compute and storage, moving steady workloads onto reserved instances or savings plans, and architecture fixes like egress redesign. The audit gives you a ranked register with a dollar figure per item before you commit to anything.

Two weeks for most accounts, three for multi-account organizations with heavy Kubernetes footprints. We need read-only access: Cost Explorer and the Cost and Usage Report, plus describe-level IAM permissions to see what resources actually exist and how utilized they are. No write access, no agents installed, NDA signed before you share anything.

The audit is fixed-price, and implementation is a scoped fixed project, we deliberately avoid pure share-of-savings deals, because they reward vendors for easy cuts and quietly discourage the architecture work with the biggest long-term payoff. That said, we put a savings estimate in writing after the audit, and if implementation does not beat our fee within twelve months, we keep working at no charge until it does.

Buy commitments only for the baseline that survives rightsizing, which is why we never purchase in week one. Compute savings plans cover most steady usage with the least lock-in; standard reserved instances still win for predictable databases; genuinely spiky or experimental workloads should stay on-demand or move to spot. We model coverage against twelve months of your actuals and rebalance quarterly.

Creep is a governance problem, so governance is a deliverable: budgets per team, anomaly alerts that page an owner before the invoice lands, tagging enforced in Terraform so new resources are attributed from day one, and a monthly cost review with a standing agenda. Most clients keep us in that review on a light retainer; the ones who run it themselves keep the runbook we wrote for it.

Not if it is done in the right order. Every rightsizing decision is based on measured utilization with headroom, changes ship one at a time through your normal review process, and anything customer-facing gets a rollback plan first. We have never caused a reliability incident with a cost change, much of what we remove, like zombie resources and oversized fear-driven instances, was adding risk surface, not resilience.

Tools are good at reporting and terrible at fixing. A dashboard can flag that NAT gateway traffic costs $9k a month; it cannot re-route the traffic, move the workload to a VPC endpoint, or rewrite the Terraform. We use your existing telemetry, Cost Explorer, Grafana, Prometheus, and spend the budget on changes, not licenses. If a tool genuinely fits your team, we will say so in the audit.

Yes, cost is one lens on the same infrastructure. Teams often pair this with our AWS cloud architecture practice when the redesign is substantial, or with monitoring and observability when the real gap is telemetry. Same pod, same standards, and everything we build stays in your accounts and your repositories when we leave.