A financial services firm runs about 60 accounts under one AWS Organizations payer. Finance must report spend along business dimensions that no single tag captures cleanly: a Product P is split across several linked accounts, while one shared platform account hosts resources belonging to three different products that are distinguished only by a mix of account, service and existing tag values. Leadership wants a reusable grouping that maps the consolidated bill into named buckets like Product and Business Unit using rules over accounts, tags and services, so the same buckets appear consistently in Cost Explorer, AWS Budgets and the Cost and Usage Report. Which capability BEST delivers this reporting view with the least ongoing effort?
- ARe-tag every resource across all 60 accounts with a single Product key and a Business Unit key, then activate those keys as cost allocation tags so the bill groups purely by the two new tags.
- BMove each product's resources into its own dedicated account and use the per-linked-account view in Cost Explorer as the Product and Business Unit reporting buckets for finance.
- CCreate AWS Cost Categories in the payer account that define named groups such as Product and Business Unit using rules over linked accounts, services and tag values, then group Cost Explorer, Budgets and the Cost and Usage Report by those categories. Correct
- DExport the Cost and Usage Report to Amazon S3 and build an Amazon Athena view that classifies each line item into Product and Business Unit, accepting that Cost Explorer and Budgets will not share these groupings.
Why A is wrong: A single flat tag per dimension cannot express a product that is defined by a mix of account, service and other tags in a shared account, and retagging tens of thousands of resources organisation-wide is a large ongoing effort that Cost Categories avoids by encoding the same logic as rules.
Why B is wrong: Splitting the shared platform account into one account per product is hugely disruptive, breaks shared workloads, and still cannot represent a product whose resources legitimately span several accounts, whereas a rule-based category models these relationships without moving anything.
Why C is correct: Cost Categories let you define named buckets from rules that combine accounts, services and tag values, exactly fitting a product that spans accounts and a shared account split by tags, and once defined the categories appear as a consistent grouping dimension across Cost Explorer, Budgets and the Cost and Usage Report.
Why D is wrong: A bespoke Athena classification view is custom SQL to author and maintain and produces groupings that live only in Athena, so Cost Explorer and Budgets cannot use the same Product and Business Unit buckets, failing the consistent cross-tool requirement.