I find the gap between what your cloud bill charges you for and what your workloads actually consume and then remove it. The audit costs nothing. The fixes are paid from what you save.
Read-only access · Written findings in 3 days · Fee is 25% of what you save
The range most unmanaged Kubernetes environments turn out to be over-provisioned by.
What the audit costs. You get a written number whether or not you hire me afterwards.
Senior engineer on your account. The person who finds it is the person who fixes it.
Nothing here asks you to commit before you've seen a number specific to your own environment.
You grant a read-only IAM role. I work through billing exports, cluster utilisation, storage, networking and commitment coverage, then send a written document: what's recoverable, how much, and what each fix involves. Nothing in your environment changes.
If the number is worth acting on, I implement the fixes. My fee is 25% of the first year of verified savings, measured against a baseline we agree before I start. No production change without your written approval, and every change ships with a rollback.
Cloud spend drifts back. A light monthly retainer covers guardrails, alerting on regressions, and a monthly review — so the savings hold instead of decaying over two quarters.
That's the whole fee. Twenty-five percent of what your bill actually drops by over the first twelve months after the fixes land, invoiced monthly as the savings show up on real invoices.
No retainer to start, no fee for the audit, nothing owed if I don't find anything worth acting on. If your spend is large, the percentage comes down — that's a conversation worth having once we both know the number.
And every year after that, you keep all of it. The fee stops at twelve months; the lower run-rate doesn't.
Any two of these and an audit will almost certainly pay for itself several times over.
Finance sees the total, engineering sees the dashboards, and no single person is accountable for the gap between them.
CPU and memory requests were guessed during the first deploy and have been quietly padding every node ever since.
Activate or Google for Startups credits expire in the next two quarters and nobody knows what the real invoice will look like.
The pain is real enough that you've opened a role — but that role won't be filled and ramped for another four months.
No committed use discounts, no savings plans, no spot for anything — because committing felt risky and nobody modelled it.
Spend is up 60% year on year and usage is up 20%. That difference is exactly what I go looking for.
Rough floor: below about ₹10 lakh a year in cloud spend there usually isn't enough to recover to justify either of our time. Above that, it's worth three hours to find out.
The same handful of things account for most of the waste in most environments. None of them are exotic — they're just nobody's job.
Illustrative, not a promise. Your number comes from your own billing data during the audit — and if it turns out to be small, I'll tell you that and we stop there. A short honest answer is worth more to both of us than a long engagement built on a bad premise.
Not an agency. No bench, no junior consultant doing the work while someone senior signs the report. Hire a firm and you get a team. Hire me and you get the person who actually knows where the waste hides.
My day job is running production Kubernetes for a smart metering platform serving utilities — Terraform, GitLab CI, ArgoCD, Helm, Istio, at scale and under real reliability constraints. Everything on this page is something I've had to find and fix in an environment I was responsible for.
That means fewer clients than a firm could take. It also means nothing gets escalated, handed off, or explained to someone who then explains it to someone else.
Sadupyog — सदुपयोग — means right use. Not spending less. Using well what you already pay for.
Send me your cloud provider and rough monthly spend. I'll tell you within a day whether an audit is worth your time — and I'll say no if it isn't.