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! 🙏
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.