I don't know how they can justify 250 USD / month bill. let alone 1000 USD / month.

We prevent way more than that from being added to the cloud bill by showing engineers cost estimates that enables them to make better decisions pre-deploy - e.g. when an engineer knows the IOPS option on their EC2 instance is costing them a lot, they're more likely to reduce that or not use that in dev envs vs just copy/paste what's on production. There's an ROI report on infracost.io that shows how we measure the cost prevention between the first and last commit on merged PRs.

▲

hx8 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Seems to be targeted at quickly reducing infa cost for small-human teams with high-compute costs. I can see some value, but it's something I'd want to review quarterly instead of per-commit. I might feel different if I was really trying to stretch some runway.

I can see why YC is interested in this issue, as I'm sure lots of startups are trying to stretch that runway.

	▲	hkh 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		When we started, we thought everyone could use it from startups to medium sized companies. What we learnt is that the most value comes for the enterprises. The reason is they have used Terraform to decentralize the infra provisioning, so now instead of a central platform team making all the IaC changes, you have hundreds or thousands of engineers making changes every month. Each of them are making a lot of decisions on the infra. and that combines with the crazy pricing models from the cloud providers was saving companies a lot of money. Then, we saw how much time is saved when you catch it at this point vs after the fact. Basically avoiding a bunch of tech debt