I manage cloud infrastructure across AWS, Azure, and GCP services for 47 different companies. Every week, someone asks which platform they should choose. My answer disappoints them: "It depends." But after five years in the trenches, I know exactly what it depends on.
The marketing promises sound identical. Scalability, reliability, global reach. The reality? Each platform has personality quirks that either complement your business or drive you insane. Here's what actually matters when choosing between Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform in 2025.
AWS services feel like shopping at a massive hardware store. They have every tool imaginable—over 200 services—but finding what you need requires experience or expensive mistakes.
I deployed a media streaming platform on AWS last year. CloudFront for delivery, Lambda for processing, Kinesis for analytics, SageMaker for recommendations. We built exactly what they envisioned. The catch? The architectural complexity required two full-time engineers to maintain it.
AWS pricing resembles airline tickets. EC2 instances seem reasonable until you add EBS storage, data transfer, snapshots, and elastic IPs. Your $100 estimate becomes $1,000. One startup discovered they were paying $400 monthly for forgotten snapshots from a cancelled project.
But when you need specific capabilities, AWS has them. Managed blockchain? Amazon Managed Blockchain. Quantum computing? Amazon Braket. The ecosystem depth remains unmatched.
Azure services make perfect sense if you live in Microsoft's world. Active Directory syncs naturally. Office 365 integration works. For Microsoft-heavy organizations, Azure becomes the obvious choice.
I migrated a financial firm from on-premise Windows to Azure. Their IT team knew PowerShell. Azure AD connected seamlessly. SQL databases moved without modification. Perfect fit.
But Azure's Microsoft focus becomes limiting outside that ecosystem. A Python startup struggled constantly. Documentation assumed Windows knowledge. Linux felt bolted on. They migrated to GCP, cutting operational overhead in half.
Azure pricing includes surprises. Windows VM licenses, support plans, and enterprise features add up. That seamless AD integration? Premium SKUs required. One client's Azure bill exceeded AWS quotes by 40% after adding "standard" features.
GCP services feel designed by engineers who actually use cloud services. Fewer products than AWS, less enterprise integration than Azure, but everything works precisely as documented. No surprises, straightforward pricing.
I transitioned a data analytics company from AWS to GCP due to cost struggles. BigQuery replaced complex Redshift. Cloud Run simplifies containers. Pricing dropped 35% while performance improved. Engineers loved the simplicity.
Google's AI capabilities embarrass the competition. A healthcare startup utilized GCP's life sciences tools to process genomic data. What took weeks elsewhere was completed in hours. AutoML-trained models without ML engineers. For data-heavy workloads, GCP dominates.
The downside? A smaller ecosystem means gaps. Need managed blockchain? Build it yourself. GCP covers core needs brilliantly but lacks AWS's everything-store approach.
Forget pricing calculators. Here's what companies actually pay:
The extras—data transfer, support, mystery charges—can double projected budgets.
AWS makes sense when you're building something that needs specific tools. A gaming company needed managed servers, real-time leaderboards, and AI chat moderation. Only AWS had everything ready. However, be prepared for deep pockets and patient engineers.
Azure is an excellent fit if Microsoft owns your infrastructure. Windows Server, Outlook, PowerShell scripts everywhere? Azure feels like home. Connecting your server room to the cloud actually works smoothly.
GCP wins when data or AI drives your business. A biotech startup processes DNA sequences. AWS was complicated and pricey. Azure lacked tools. GCP? Built for this. Simple, half the cost, scientists understand it.
Multi-cloud strategies sound smart in boardrooms. Then reality hits. I watched retail try databases on GCP, web servers on AWS, and authentication through Azure. Triple complexity, triple staff, 20% platform utilization. They're consolidating to AWS now.
Moving between clouds hurts. Azure to AWS migration for better e-commerce tools? Six months, $400,000. "Lift and shift" became "rebuild everything." Services don't map cleanly.
Pick a platform and commit. Multi-cloud is ideal for disaster recovery or meeting regulatory requirements. For most, complexity isn't worth theoretical benefits.
After five years managing all three:
Changing platforms later costs more than choosing wrong initially. But sticking with the wrong choice costs the most. Make informed decisions quickly. Analysis paralysis while competitors advance is the worst choice.
The "best" platform doesn't exist. The best for your situation does. Understanding what AWS services, Azure services, and GCP services actually deliver—versus promises—makes that choice clear.
I've spent five years juggling AWS, Azure, and GCP for 47 different companies. Each platform promised to be "the solution." Reality? AWS offers over 200 services that can be overwhelming. Azure integrates well with Microsoft products, but bills like a luxury hotel. GCP keeps things simple and crushes data workloads. Here's what $50 million in cloud spending taught me about picking the right platform.