I’m comparing AWS CUR 2.0 with FOCUS exports. CUR appears to offer more fields, including AWS-specific billing details, while FOCUS uses a smaller common schema. How are people choosing between them in practice?
Do you use CUR, FOCUS, or both for cost reporting?
Asked by
yarrow.18
Answers
They solve different problems. CUR is the better fit when you need AWS-specific detail, such as resource IDs, split cost allocation, or Savings Plans and Reserved Instances data. FOCUS can be easier to work with when the goal is a consistent cost model across cloud providers.
Reply to this answer
For a small FinOps setup, I’d lean toward FOCUS if cross-cloud reporting is the priority. Fewer fields to wrangle, and a shared schema can make it easier to bring another provider’s data into the same warehouse. That convenience may not cover every AWS-specific question, though.
Reply to this answer
If you track Savings Plans closely, check the level of detail you need before relying on FOCUS alone. Hourly data can matter for allocation and analysis, and the discussion here points to CUR as the safer source for that AWS-specific use case. I’d keep CUR available wherever those details are operationally important.
Reply to this answer
I wouldn’t pick based on the raw field count. More columns do not automatically mean better reporting, and fewer columns do not automatically mean a loss you’ll notice. List the reports and allocations you actually need, then verify each one against the export. Running both can be reasonable if you want a normalized view plus access to native billing details.
Reply to this answer
Add your answer
Answers are reviewed before publication.
yarrow.18:
That distinction makes sense. I’m trying to figure out whether the simpler schema is worth giving up some provider-specific detail.