Built an AWS Cost Audit & Remediation tool for startups — looking for beta testers
Hey IH — I'm Ritesh, a FinOps consultant based in India.
Just finished building an AWS Cost Audit & Remediation Accelerator for startups spending on AWS without a dedicated cloud team.
What it does:
→ Scans 7 resource types across multiple AWS accounts — idle EC2, unattached EBS, unused Elastic IPs, oversized RDS, forgotten S3, orphaned load balancers, data transfer waste
→ Generates specific remediation steps with automated fix options for each finding
→ Delivers Excel report (9 sheets) + PDF executive summary + Streamlit dashboard
→ Full scan in under 60 minutes
Real numbers:
→ Total spend scanned: $57.89/month
→ Savings found: $47.11/month — 81.4% savings rate
→ Real accounts surface significantly more
Safe by design:
→ Read-only IAM — no write permissions
→ Dry-run default — nothing changed without confirmation
Looking for:
2–3 founders to run a free audit — honest feedback in return.
6-minute demo: https://www.loom.com/share/e62f589d1d0e45ac95a2d80652b594eb
Drop a comment or DM me if interested! 🙏
Excited to share — we're live on Product Hunt today! AWS Cost Audit & Remediation tool that finds and fixes dead AWS spend automatically. Check it out here: https://www.producthunt.com/p/aws-cost-audit-remediation-accelerator/aws-cost-audit-remediation-accelerator
The pain is real, but the current frame still sounds like consulting with nicer packaging.
That makes the buyer compare this to “another audit” instead of “something we should just run.”
The stronger wedge is probably not cost visibility.
It is cost negligence.
Most early teams already know AWS is messy.
What they do not know is how much dead spend has already become normalized.
That is the sharper pain:
not “optimize cloud costs”
but “you are already paying for infrastructure nobody is using.”
That shifts this from advisory into leak detection.
Which matters, because the second this feels like recurring infrastructure hygiene instead of one-off consulting, the current name starts holding less weight.
rkscloudsolutions reads like a services wrapper.
Fine for consulting.
Weak for productized infra.
Davoq.com would carry this much better once it moves from audits to ongoing cloud cost enforcement.
This reframe hits hard — you're right that 'cost visibility' is a weak wedge.
'You're already paying for infrastructure nobody is using' is a much sharper pain statement.
The leak detection angle makes complete sense. Every startup I've talked to already knows AWS is messy — but they've normalized it because nobody has actually looked.
That's the real problem. Not "you could save money" but "you're already losing it and don't know how much."
On leading with a number before scanning — I've been thinking about this. Can't give an exact figure without scanning, but the benchmark is consistent: 20–30% of AWS spend is typically dead infrastructure.
So the opening could be: "Statistically, you're already paying for infrastructure nobody is using — we find it and fix it in 60 minutes."
On the naming — completely agree. rkscloudsolutions.com is a services wrapper. The product needs its own identity eventually. Holding off on that until first revenue, but it's on the roadmap.
Curious — when you say cost negligence as the frame, do you mean leading with the accumulated waste number rather than forward looking savings? That's a subtle but important shift in how the pitch lands.
Yes, exactly.
Lead with accumulated waste, not future savings.
“Save 20 percent on AWS” sounds optional.
“You are already paying for infrastructure nobody uses” sounds like a leak.
That changes the buyer’s reaction.
Savings feels like optimization.
Waste feels like negligence.
Founders delay optimization, but they move faster when they feel money is already bleeding.
On naming, I’d be careful waiting too long.
If the first revenue comes through a services wrapper, buyers will frame this as consulting from day one.
If you want this to become recurring infra hygiene, the product identity should probably appear before the market locks you into “cloud cost audit service.”
That is where Davoq fits better.
It gives the product a sharper infrastructure feel without sounding like an agency or freelancer wrapper.
"Savings feels like optimization. Waste feels like negligence." — this is the clearest articulation I've heard of why my current messaging is falling flat.
The psychological shift makes complete sense. Founders delay optimization because it feels discretionary. But nobody ignores a leak. That changes the entire sales motion.
On the accumulated waste framing — I'm thinking the opening line becomes something like:
"Right now, [Company] is probably paying for infrastructure nobody is using. Not a prediction — it's what we find in every account we scan. The question is just how much."
That makes it feel inevitable rather than aspirational.
On naming — your point about market framing is sharp. If first revenue comes through rkscloudsolutions.com, buyers will mentally file this as "hired a consultant" not "adopted a product." That's a hard frame to undo later.
Davoq is interesting — it has an infrastructure feel without the services wrapper association. Strong enough to stand alone as a product name.
Honest question — at what point does the naming shift become urgent? Before first revenue, after first revenue, or before first 10 customers?
Ritesh, one direct follow-up on this because your thread stuck with me.
The key decision was not just the name. It was whether the first paid push makes buyers see this as cloud cost consulting or as an infra waste detection product.
That is a real category decision, and it probably needs to be decided before you push for first revenue.
If useful, I can do a focused naming/positioning audit around that exact problem: rkscloudsolutions vs product identity, the “cost negligence” wedge, first-revenue framing, domain risk, and whether Davoq or another sharper product name should be secured before buyers start mentally filing this as a services wrapper.
Not a long consulting thing. Just a sharp written decision memo you can use before the first serious paid outreach.
I’m doing a few of these at $99 while refining the format.
If this is still active, connect here and I can give you a clear outside read before the product gets locked into the consulting frame:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/aryan-y-0163b0278/
Before first revenue if the goal is product.
After first revenue if you are okay being framed as consulting first.
That is the tradeoff.
The first few customers do more than pay you.
They define what category you get placed in.
If they buy through rkscloudsolutions.com, the mental frame is:
cloud cost consultant
If they buy through a sharper product identity, the frame becomes:
infra waste detection system
Same work.
Different category.
Different pricing ceiling.
That is why I would not wait until 10 customers.
By then the market has already started teaching you what you are, and it may teach the wrong thing.
If you are serious about recurring infra hygiene, I would create the product identity before the first real paid push.