$11,200 per month on commitments covering workloads that don't exist.
You bought Savings Plans 18 months ago. Infrastructure changed. Workloads migrated. But the commitments? Still running.
The Situation
Your data warehouse migrated six months ago. Batch processing moved to a different architecture. But the Savings Plans? Purchased 18 months ago for the old setup. Still running. Still being charged.
You think you're wasting $8K-$15K/month, but you can't prove it. You don't have a clear picture of which Savings Plans actually cover active workloads, which ones are stranded, and what your best move is.
You'd need to audit 9 AWS accounts, cross-reference Savings Plan coverage with current workloads, model out different scenarios. Finance wants numbers. You've got hunches.
The Company
Series C infrastructure-heavy SaaS. $180K/month compute bill. 9 AWS accounts. Complex architecture with old and new workloads running in parallel.
Finance knows money is being left on the table. But without proof, budget can't be redirected elsewhere.
With Escher
You ask: "Analyze our Savings Plans and RIs. Where are we overpaying?"
- 0-2 min: Escher ingests Savings Plan and Reserved Instance data from all 9 accounts. Cross-references current compute usage across EC2, RDS, Redshift.
- 2-4 min: Identifies $11,200/month in Savings Plans covering workloads that no longer exist. Shows $4,800/month of under-committed capacity that should be covered but isn't.
- 4-5 min: Models three scenarios: 1) Exit stranded commitments, 2) Rebalance coverage to active workloads, 3) Hybrid approach. Each scenario shows dollar impact.
product screenshot · replace with actual
The Outcome
Before
"I think we're
wasting $8-15K"
With Escher
$402K recovered
over 3 years
Real impact: CFO gets a plan, not a shrug. You know exactly what to exit and what to buy. Finance can confidently reallocate savings.