Multicloud Personalities 2025: AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud for IT Leaders

Title: A practical guide to the multicloud personalities of AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud — what IT leaders should know in 2025
Lead
The three hyperscalers — Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform (GCP) — all provide the raw building blocks enterprises expect: VMs, managed containers and Kubernetes, object and block storage, serverless execution, managed databases, networking, and observability. But they do not approach the multicloud challenge the same way. Each has a distinct “personality” that shapes how customers design hybrid and multicloud architectures, how they deploy apps, and where they feel the most value — and most pain.
This feature unpacks those personalities, compares their technical approaches, and gives actionable guidance for enterprises building multicloud or hybrid strategies in 2025. The analysis draws on current vendor product design and real-world operator trade-offs to help you choose patterns and guardrails that reduce cost, complexity, and lock‑in risk.
Executive summary (TL;DR)

• AWS: “Cloud-everywhere via AWS hardware.” AWS emphasizes bringing its cloud APIs and managed services into customer sites (Outposts family, local servers) and its own native feature set across the stack. Strengths: breadth of services, global scale, mature operations model. Trade-offs: proprietary APIs and richer AWS-native feature sets create migration work and unpredictable cross‑cloud parity.
• Azure: “Cloud as the enterprise management plane.” Microsoft leans into hybrid and multicloud management: Azure Arc projects external resources into Azure’s control plane so customers can manage Windows, Linux, VMs, Kubernetes, and some data services from Azure tools. Strengths: enterprise identity, Windows/SQL heritage, management-first tooling. Trade-offs: best benefits for customers that commit to Microsoft tooling and licensing.
• Google Cloud: “Kubernetes-first, open portability.” GCP champions application portability with Anthos and GKE (on cloud, on‑prem, and on other clouds). Strengths: open standards, strong data and ML services, developer-centric tooling. Trade-offs: Anthos is a strategic, enterprise-priced play and requires careful cost/operational sizing.

How the three differ in approach (high level)

• AWS: hardware + native services. AWS extends its cloud operational model into customer data centers with a family of managed hardware and appliances that run native AWS services and APIs locally. The pattern is: same APIs, same developer experience — but running on physical racks or servers you host.
• Azure: management-first and identity-led. Azure treats Azure itself as a management hub: Azure Arc makes non‑Azure resources “appear” in the Azure resource graph and gives you unified policies, RBAC, monitoring and security across environments.
• Google Cloud: application portability via Kubernetes. Anthos is about standardizing on Kubernetes as the universal application substrate so teams can build and operate apps the same way regardless of where they run.

Key platform choices and what they mean
1) Hybrid hardware and on-prem options

• AWS Outposts (and Outposts servers): fully managed AWS hardware delivered and operated at the customer site. It brings EC2, EBS, and a selection of other AWS services locally, using the same APIs as the public region. Use it when latency, data residency, or legacy interdependencies demand local compute operated with full AWS consistency.
• Azure Stack family (Azure Stack HCI, Azure Stack Edge, Azure Stack Hub) + Azure Arc: Azure Stack appliances give you Microsoft-managed hardware at the edge or HCI options in your datacenter; Arc decouples management so you can manage non‑Azure VMs & Kubernetes clusters through the Azure control plane.
• Anthos / GKE On‑Prem / GKE Bare Metal: Google’s model is not vendor hardware; Anthos is software-first, aiming to run GKE and the Anthos control plane on VMware, bare metal, or other clouds — prioritizing application portability over matching cloud provider feature parity.

Bottom line: choose Outposts when you want “AWS everywhere” (same tools & services), choose Azure Stack/Arc when Azure’s management, Windows, and enterprise ecosystem are primary, and choose Anthos/EKS‑style patterns when you want cluster portability and are ready to standardize on Kubernetes.
2) Kubernetes and containers (EKS / AKS / GKE)

• AWS: EKS is AWS’s managed Kubernetes. EKS Anywhere and EKS Distro let customers run a consistent Kubernetes distribution outside the AWS regions. If you already leverage many AWS-native services, EKS integrates tightly with load balancers, IAM roles for service accounts, and native service discovery.
• Azure: AKS is the managed Kubernetes service; Azure Arc enables configuration management and GitOps across AKS and other clusters. Microsoft emphasizes developer tooling (Visual Studio/VS Code integration) and Windows Server support.
• Google Cloud: GKE is widely regarded as the purest managed Kubernetes offering (GKE has deep experience with upstream Kubernetes and automated lifecycle operations). Anthos uses GKE and GKE On‑Prem to provide single-plane cluster management.

Practical tip: for multicloud Kubernetes, the dominant operational win is consistent CI/CD, GitOps config management, and centralized policy enforcement (policy-as-code). Anthos’ Config Management, Azure Arc’s GitOps tooling, or open tools (ArgoCD/Flux, OPA/Conftest/Cilium) are common foundations.
3) Serverless and containers-as-a-service

• AWS: Lambda is the dominant serverless compute for functions; AWS also supports container images for Lambdas and has container orchestration options (ECS, Fargate). Lambda emphasizes event-driven functions, scaling, and deep service integrations.
• Azure: Azure Functions supports durable workflows (Durable Functions) and various pricing plans; Microsoft pushes Functions for app logic closely tied to Azure services.
• Google: Cloud Run offers serverless containers (a strongly developer-friendly option for containerized workloads); Cloud Functions remain for functions.

Practical trade-offs: serverless reduces operational burden but creates different portability constraints. Cloud Run (containers-as-serverless) is often the easiest path to preserve container portability across clouds compared with provider‑native functions.
4) Managed data and databases

• AWS: RDS (for relational engines), DynamoDB (NoSQL), Aurora (high-performance compatible relational), S3 for object storage, RedShift for data warehousing. AWS offers many purpose-built DBs (time-series, memory‑first, graph, etc.).
• Azure: Azure SQL Database (and SQL Managed Instance), Cosmos DB (multi-model, globally distributed database), Blob Storage. Microsoft often promotes lift-and-shift for SQL Server workloads, plus native integrations with Active Directory and Windows tooling.
• GCP: Cloud SQL (managed MySQL/Postgres), Spanner (globally distributed relational), BigQuery (data warehouse/analytics), Cloud Storage. Google positions Spanner and BigQuery as strengths for global scale and analytics.

Data gravity note: storage and data analytics often determine where your applications need to run. Moving petabytes across clouds is costly and operationally fraught.
5) Identity, security and governance

• AWS: IAM is central; AWS provides many security and compliance services (GuardDuty, Security Hub, IAM Access Analyzer). AWS’s model is native, deep, and feature-rich.
• Azure: Azure Active Directory is widely used in enterprises and gives Azure an advantage for identity-first scenarios and Microsoft stack customers. Azure’s governance tooling (Policy, Blueprints, Defender) integrates tightly with Arc.
• GCP: Cloud IAM and Organizations provide identity and policy; Anthos and Google security tooling emphasize supply-chain security and Kubernetes-native policy.

Multicloud governance pattern: use a central policy strategy (policy-as-code, RBAC/ABAC mapping, and least privilege). Expect to implement an identity federation layer (e.g., Okta, Azure AD, or a SAML/OIDC hub) when teams span multiple clouds to avoid admin explosion.
6) Observability and operations

• AWS: CloudWatch for logs/metrics/tracing; X‑Ray for distributed tracing, many third-party integrations.
• Azure: Azure Monitor provides logs/metrics/alerts and integrates with Azure Policy and Defender.
• GCP: Cloud Monitoring and Cloud Logging (Stackdriver) are the default; Anthos can aggregate telemetry for multi-cluster views.

Operational tip: adopt a cloud-agnostic observability approach (OpenTelemetry, Prometheus + remote write, Grafana, log aggregation) and then connect the cloud native monitoring backends as a secondary or compliance-specific source.
Pricing and cost-control realities

• Pricing is complex and rapidly changing. Each provider structures billing differently: compute-by-instance, vCPU-hours, serverless GB‑s, network egress, managed service licenses, and appliance/subscription fees for hybrid products.
• Hybrid products have different models:
• AWS Outposts is sold as a managed hardware offering (hardware + service subscription/term).
• Azure Stack and Arc use a mix of appliance billing, hybrid benefits and add-on charges.
• Anthos historically is positioned as a subscription/cluster-vCPU model and can be materially more expensive on premises; allocation blocks and support requirements can change economics rapidly.

Do not assume price parity. The cost of multicloud often comes from data transfer/egress, third‑party support, extra licensing, and the operational overhead of multiple toolchains. Build a FinOps practice, use tagging, and run cloud cost simulations before you commit.
Developer/ML stacks and capabilities

• AWS: SageMaker is the large, end-to-end ML platform with built-in MLOps features, model hosting, and a wide partner ecosystem. AWS also offers Inferentia/Trainium chips for optimized model workloads.
• Azure: Azure ML integrates with Microsoft enterprise tooling and emphasizes model governance, MLOps through DevOps pipelines, and integration with Azure OpenAI and Cognitive Services.
• GCP: Vertex AI focuses on MLOps, model governance, large-scale training, and connecting data pipelines into Google’s analytics ecosystem; it’s often selected for data-heavy, model-centric deployments.

If you are evaluating cloud providers for AI/ML, prioritize:

• data locality (can the dataset stay where it is?),
• accelerators availability (GPUs/TPUs/TPUs on demand),
• MLOps tooling maturity,
• model ops governance, and
• model-serving latency and cost for production inference.

Multicloud design patterns that work (and why)
1) “Control‑plane centralization, data-plane local” — use a single management/visibility plane (policy, CI/CD, observability) while keeping data and latency-sensitive processing where it belongs. The idea: centralize governance, decentralize execution.
2) “Kubernetes as the abstraction layer” — standardize on Kubernetes and GitOps for application deployment. It reduces application-level lock‑in and lets you run the same CI/CD across providers. Beware: things like load balancers, storage classes, and managed database integrations still differ.
3) “API-level portability” — where containers/Kubernetes are not appropriate, design to avoid provider-specific managed services (or isolate them behind service contracts/wrappers). If you use many managed services (e.g., AWS Lambda + DynamoDB), be explicit about migration cost and runbooks.
4) “Cloud-native for best-of-breed; cloud-agnostic for core business logic” — use a mixture: workloads that benefit greatly from a vendor’s unique capabilities (e.g., BigQuery or Aurora serverless) can live in one cloud; keep core business logic portable.
Common pitfalls teams encounter

• Underestimating data egress and transfer costs. Gravity is real: move compute to data where possible.
• Thinking “one pane of glass” solves diversity. Management consoles are helpful, but deep features will always require cloud‑specific knowledge and operations.
• Ignoring identity and access model mismatches. Mapping RBAC across clouds is nontrivial.
• Treating hybrid appliances as “plug‑and‑play.” On‑prem appliances require facility readiness, networking, and operational models like patching and physical maintenance.
• Choosing multicloud for the sake of it. Multicloud brings strategic benefits (resilience, vendor negotiation) but also multiplies complexity.

Decision framework: which cloud for which problem (short guide)

• Low-latency on‑prem or regulated data that must remain local: AWS Outposts or Azure Stack (depending whether AWS native services or Microsoft management integrations are preferred).
• Enterprise apps with deep Microsoft dependency (Active Directory, SQL Server) and need unified governance: Azure + Azure Arc.
• Kubernetes-first portability and modern microservices with a multi-cloud plan: GKE/Anthos or EKS Anywhere with a strong GitOps stack.
• Broadest service catalog and fastest innovation in IaaS features: AWS.
• Heavy analytics, data warehouse, and serverless data platforms: evaluate BigQuery (GCP) and Redshift/Athena/Glue (AWS); consider Snowflake or Databricks as cross‑cloud options.
• ML/AI with strong tooling and modeling workflows: Vertex AI (GCP) if you prioritize MLOps and Google’s tooling; SageMaker (AWS) for broad integrations; Azure ML for enterprise governance and Azure OpenAI service integration.

Operational checklist before you adopt multicloud

• Inventory existing workloads and rank by latency, data residency, cost sensitivity, and business criticality.
• Tag and classify data: decide where data must remain and where it can move.
• Design identity federations, service accounts, and least privilege access across providers.
• Choose a small set of cross-cloud foundational tools: GitOps (ArgoCD/Flux), IaC (Terraform/CloudFormation/Bicep), monitoring (OpenTelemetry + centralized backend), and secrets (HashiCorp Vault, cloud key management with careful replication).
• Run a pilot: migrate a representative workload, measure total cost of ownership (incl. toolbaring & staff time), and iterate.
• Institute a FinOps team and cost‑alerting for early detection of runaway bills.
• Prepare runbooks for failover and data recovery across clouds.

When multicloud makes sense (and when it doesn’t)
Use multicloud when:

• Compliance or regional presence requires it.
• Strategic vendor risk mitigation is necessary.
• Specific provider capabilities materially accelerate business outcomes.

Avoid multicloud when:

• You’re a small team with limited cloud expertise (consolidation reduces operational overhead).
• Data gravity and integration tightness make cross‑cloud architectures unnecessarily expensive.

Final recommendations (practical)
1) Start with a clear strategic goal for multicloud (resilience, cost leverage, regulatory compliance), not “we should be multicloud.” Align the technical choices to that goal.
2) Choose a portability anchor: if your developers embrace containers, make Kubernetes + GitOps the anchor. If the environment is Windows/SQL-heavy, use Azure’s hybrid story as the anchor.
3) Standardize CI/CD and observability across environments before mass migration. This buys you operational maturity that pays off during incidents.
4) Run realistic cost models that include egress, licensing, managed appliance subscription fees, and people costs. Don’t just model compute hours.
5) Treat hybrid and on‑prem appliances as long‑lived, production infrastructure: plan facilities, network, power, spare parts, and vendor support SLAs.
6) Use a phased multicloud approach: pilot, measure, harden, then expand.
Closing perspective
There’s no single “right” multicloud answer. The three major providers each have a defensible, internally consistent strategy:

• AWS pushes the cloud everywhere via managed hardware and a comprehensive services portfolio.
• Azure wants to be the enterprise’s single management surface, fitting naturally into organizations that already adopt Microsoft tooling.
• Google bets on Kubernetes and application portability as the strategic abstraction that reduces lock‑in.

Good multicloud strategy isn’t about infinite portability; it’s about making deliberate choices that balance developer velocity, operational complexity, cost, and risk. Use the patterns in this article to create a measurable multicloud plan with solid pilots and clear stop criteria — then iterate.
If you want

• A checklist template (ready for your runbook) to run a 90‑day hybrid/multicloud pilot.
• A cost-model worksheet for Outposts vs. cloud-hosted alternatives.
• A side‑by‑side feature matrix (compute, storage, serverless, K8s, DBs, security) tailored to your existing estate and a recommended three-step migration plan.

Tell me which you want first and what’s in your current stack (VMs, containers, data volumes, compliance constraints), and I’ll generate the deliverable you can use as the basis for your pilot.

---

Source: InfoWorld A Guide to the multicloud strategies of AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud