Cut the cloud bill without the lock in.
iTmethods operates your FinOps practice and, with Archera, replaces rigid multi-year commitments with insured commitments that adapt to real usage on a thirty-day cycle.
Paying for capacity you do not use.
Static reserved instances and multi-year commitments assume your usage will hold still for one to three years. It will not.
The discount is real. So is the bet, and the bet is on an estate nobody can describe three years out.
Most estates end up doing both at once, in different accounts, for reasons nobody remembers.
If usage drops, the insured portion is covered. The saving stays; the lock-in risk does not.
Which is roughly the horizon over which anyone can actually predict their own consumption.
Not a dashboard you run alone.
Visibility, right-sizing and commitment strategy, run as an operated practice rather than handed to you as a tool and a login.
| What | How it is run |
|---|---|
| Visibility | Unified spend across the estate, so every dollar is attributable to a team, an account and a workload before anyone argues about it. |
| Right-sizing | Idle resources and oversized instances found and fixed as a continuing practice rather than an annual cleanup project somebody volunteers for. |
| Commitment strategy | Budget rules and the commitment position run by an operator rather than maintained in a spreadsheet by whoever last had time. |
| The insurance layer | Delivered with Archera, whose insured commitments are what make the thirty-day cycle possible. About the partnership → |
Looking for the wider practice, including AI workload economics and model spend? Cloud and AI cost optimization →
Savings without lock-in risk.
Enterprises with growing cloud spend that want the discount without the multi-year bet. If the bill is climbing and the commitment strategy is a spreadsheet and a hope, this is the operated alternative.
No re-architecture, no migration, and no requirement to consolidate accounts before anything can start.
We operate it. You own it, and you can see what is committed, what is covered and what it is costing at any point.
A saving figure quoted before the estate has been examined is a sales tactic rather than an estimate. The assessment →
The review commits you to nothing, and the recommendation at the end is allowed to say that your position is already reasonable.
Spend is a governance question the moment agents are the ones spending it.
A human team over-provisioning a database is a budget problem. An agent fleet consuming model capacity is a budget problem and a control problem at once, because the thing spending the money is making its own decisions about when to.
What we run, what you run.
Written down before anything is deployed, so the boundary is a document rather than a discovery.
| Who | What they hold |
|---|---|
| Reign Ops, automated | Operate the visibility, the right-sizing practice and the commitment position across the estate. Run the insured-commitment cycle. Report attribution by team, account and workload. |
| Customer authored | The budget rules and the risk appetite. Which reductions are acceptable and which are not. What each environment is for. The decision on any commitment change. |
| Operating partner engagement | The initial assessment and attribution. Standing up the reporting your finance function will actually read. The periodic review of the commitment position as the estate changes. |
The questions that arrive every time.
What is an insured commitment?
Do we have to change anything to start?
Will you tell us how much we would save?
Which deployment shapes can we have?
What does it cost?
Tell us what the bill looks like now.
Roughly what you spend, across which clouds, and whether anyone can currently attribute it. We will come back with what we would look at first.