Synopsis
Choose the export after you know the question
CUR 2.0 keeps AWS-specific billing detail. FOCUS gives you a provider-neutral schema. That is a useful difference, not a contest with one permanent winner.
Observation
Standardization and investigation pull in different directions
For an AWS investigation I usually want usage type, operation, line-item type, resource ID where available, and AWS discount fields. For a multi-provider reporting model, consistent columns and terminology may matter more.
Procedure
A practical choice
| Question | Start with |
|---|---|
| Why did this AWS charge move? | CUR 2.0 |
| How do providers compare in one model? | FOCUS |
| Need both? | Export both and document reconciliation |
CUR 2.0 has a consistent schema with nested product, discount, resource-tag, and cost-category fields. Resource IDs and hourly granularity are configuration choices.
Limits
Neither export fixes the organizational work
Neither dataset repairs missing tags, defines shared-cost policy, or explains business intent. Validate totals, currencies, credits, refunds, and commitment treatment before comparing derived reports.
Kulshan
Keep the AWS detail when the investigation needs it
kulshan analyze cost and kulshan analyze ec2 work from CUR/Data Export evidence. The point is investigation depth, not opposition to a standard schema.
Keep reading