AWS vs Azure for Enterprise: An Honest Comparison After Running Production on Both

Published: December 2025 | Reading Time: 22 minutes

Key Takeaways

• Neither platform is objectively "better"—fit depends on your specific situation – The right choice aligns with your existing investments, team skills, and application portfolio
• Microsoft shops should lean toward Azure; startups and pure tech companies often favour AWS – Enterprise agreements and ecosystem fit trump marginal technical differences
• Core compute and storage are essentially equivalent; differentiation is in specialised services – Both platforms deliver 99.9%+ reliability for fundamental infrastructure
• Enterprise agreements and existing relationships often matter more than technical features – Azure Hybrid Benefit can save 40-80% on Windows licensing; AWS startup credits can cover first-year costs
• The "best" platform is the one your team can operate effectively – Organisational learning curves are measured in quarters, not weeks—pick and commit
• Multi-cloud adds 20-40% complexity without proportional benefits for most organisations – Single-cloud mastery beats multi-cloud mediocrity

The Honest Assessment

After operating production workloads on both AWS and Azure for 70+ enterprise clients, here's what the real comparison looks like—beyond vendor marketing and analyst reports.

1. Overall Positioning

Dimension	AWS	Azure
Market share	~32%	~23%
Service breadth	Broadest (~200 services)	Very broad (~150+ services)
Enterprise integration	Good	Excellent (Microsoft ecosystem)
Startup ecosystem	Excellent	Good
Innovation pace	Fastest	Fast
Documentation quality	Excellent	Good (improving rapidly)
Learning curve	Steeper	Easier if you know Microsoft
Global regions	33 regions	60+ regions

2. Who Actually Chooses What

Based on real-world enterprise decisions, not vendor claims:

Organization Type	Typical Choice	Why
Startups/Tech companies	AWS (60-70%)	Developer ecosystem, documentation, startup programs
Microsoft shops	Azure (70-80%)	EA licensing benefits, Active Directory integration
Enterprise with diverse IT	Split or AWS	Avoid vendor lock-in, mature services
Government/regulated	Depends	Both have specialized compliance regions
Google-centric orgs	GCP	Workspace integration, analytics strength

The pattern is clear: existing technology investments predict cloud choices more accurately than technical feature comparisons.

Organisations implementing cloud development services should evaluate based on their current enterprise architecture, not abstract "best practices."

Service-by-Service Comparison

1. Compute: The Commoditised Foundation

Capability	AWS	Azure	Winner
VM variety	500+ instance types	400+ VM sizes	AWS (slightly)
Serverless (functions)	Lambda	Azure Functions	Tie (both mature)
Containers (managed K8s)	EKS	AKS	Tie (AKS slightly easier)
Containers (serverless)	Fargate	Container Instances	AWS (more mature)
Spot/preemptible pricing	Better discounts	Good discounts	AWS (typically 5-10% cheaper)
Bare metal	EC2 Bare Metal	Azure Dedicated Host	Tie

Our take: Compute is essentially commoditised. Both work reliably. AWS offers slightly more instance type options, while Azure is slightly simpler to configure.

For organisations migrating web applications or mobile app backends, both platforms provide equivalent compute foundations. The decision should hinge on other factors.

2. Storage: Feature Parity with Different Philosophies

Capability	AWS	Azure	Winner
Object storage	S3	Blob Storage	Tie (both excellent)
Block storage	EBS	Managed Disks	Tie
File storage	EFS	Azure Files	Azure (native SMB support)
Archive	S3 Glacier	Archive Storage	AWS (more granular tiers)
Data lake	S3 + Lake Formation	ADLS Gen2	Azure (tighter analytics integration)
CDN integration	CloudFront	Azure CDN	AWS (more features)

Our take: Storage is a fundamental tie. AWS provides more granular tiering options; Azure offers better integration with analytics workloads and Windows file protocols.

Organisations running media platforms or healthcare systems with HIPAA requirements will find both platforms compliant and performant.

3. Database: Platform Matters for SQL Server

Capability	AWS	Azure	Winner
Managed MySQL/PostgreSQL	RDS	Azure Database	Tie (both excellent)
Managed SQL Server	RDS SQL Server	Azure SQL Database	Azure (significantly)
NoSQL document	DynamoDB	Cosmos DB	AWS (simpler), Azure (more flexible)
Cache	ElastiCache	Azure Cache for Redis	Tie
Data warehouse	Redshift	Synapse Analytics	Azure (more integrated)
Graph database	Neptune	Cosmos DB (Gremlin)	Tie

Our take: If you're SQL Server-heavy, Azure wins decisively—better performance, lower licensing costs, and tighter integration. For open-source databases (PostgreSQL, MySQL), they're essentially equivalent.

DynamoDB is simpler and more opinionated; Cosmos DB is more flexible with multiple API models (SQL, MongoDB, Cassandra, Gremlin). Choose based on your application needs, not marketing claims.

For e-commerce platforms or financial management systems, database performance and cost become critical decision factors.

4. Networking: AWS Leads in Feature Depth

Capability	AWS	Azure	Winner
VPC/VNet	Very mature	Mature	Tie
Load balancing	ALB/NLB/GLB	Azure LB/App Gateway	AWS (more features)
CDN	CloudFront	Azure CDN (Akamai, Verizon)	AWS
DNS	Route 53	Azure DNS	AWS (more advanced)
Hybrid connectivity	Direct Connect	ExpressRoute	Tie
Traffic management	Route 53, Global Accelerator	Traffic Manager	AWS

Our take: AWS networking is more feature-rich and flexible. Azure networking is simpler and adequate for most enterprise needs. Unless you have complex multi-region traffic management requirements, Azure's simpler model may actually be preferable.

Organisations implementing IoT solutions with edge computing needs should evaluate network latency and hybrid connectivity carefully.

5. Security and Identity: Azure's Enterprise Advantage

Capability	AWS	Azure	Winner
IAM	AWS IAM	Azure AD + RBAC	Azure (enterprise integration)
Directory integration	AD Connector	Native Azure AD	Azure (significantly better)
Security monitoring	GuardDuty	Microsoft Defender for Cloud	Tie
Key management	KMS	Azure Key Vault	Tie
Compliance certifications	Extensive	Extensive	Tie
Zero-trust architecture	AWS Zero Trust	Azure Zero Trust	Azure (more integrated)

Our take: Azure wins decisively for enterprise identity scenarios. If your organisation uses Active Directory (and most enterprises do), Azure's native integration eliminates significant complexity. AWS IAM is powerful but requires more integration work and ongoing management.

For IT administration systems or human resources platforms, seamless identity integration isn't optional—it's foundational.

6. AI/ML: Different Strengths for Different Needs

Capability	AWS	Azure	Winner
ML platform	SageMaker	Azure Machine Learning	AWS (more comprehensive)
Pre-built AI services	Rekognition, Comprehend, etc.	Cognitive Services	Tie
OpenAI integration	Bedrock (multiple models)	Azure OpenAI (exclusive GPT-4)	Azure (if you want GPT)
Data science notebooks	SageMaker Notebooks	Azure ML Notebooks	Tie
AutoML	SageMaker Autopilot	Azure AutoML	Tie
MLOps	SageMaker Pipelines	Azure ML Pipelines	AWS (more mature)

Our take: AWS SageMaker is more mature and comprehensive for custom ML model development and MLOps. Azure has the exclusive enterprise partnership with OpenAI, making it the only choice if you need GPT-4 with enterprise SLAs.

Organisations building AI agents or implementing AI & machine learning solutions should evaluate based on specific model requirements and MLOps maturity needs.

7. DevOps and Developer Tools: Azure's Complete Platform

Capability	AWS	Azure	Winner
CI/CD	CodePipeline	Azure DevOps	Azure (more complete)
Source control	CodeCommit	Azure Repos	Azure
Infrastructure as Code	CloudFormation, CDK	ARM Templates, Bicep	AWS (CDK is superior)
Monitoring	CloudWatch	Azure Monitor	Tie
Cost management	Cost Explorer	Azure Cost Management	Azure (slightly better UI)
Artifact management	CodeArtifact	Azure Artifacts	Azure

Our take: Azure DevOps is a more complete, integrated DevOps platform out of the box. AWS excels at infrastructure-as-code with CDK (Cloud Development Kit), which generates CloudFormation from high-level programming languages.

If you're already using GitHub Actions or GitLab CI/CD, both cloud platforms integrate equally well. The native platform advantage matters more for teams starting from scratch.

The Real Decision Factors

Beyond feature checklists, here's what actually determines successful cloud platform selection:

Factor 1: Existing Microsoft Investments

Do you have:

    ✓ Enterprise Agreement (EA) with Microsoft?
    ✓ Active Directory for identity management?
    ✓ Microsoft 365 (formerly Office 365)?
    ✓ SQL Server licenses?
    ✓ Visual Studio subscriptions?
    ✓ Dynamics 365 or other Microsoft SaaS?

If mostly yes: Azure. You'll receive Azure consumption credits, license mobility (run existing licenses in Azure), and seamless integration with existing tools.

If mostly no: Either platform works; evaluate on technical merits and team capabilities.

The financial reality: Azure Hybrid Benefit can reduce Windows VM costs by 40-80% and SQL Server costs by 55-80%. These aren't marketing numbers—they're contractual benefits that dramatically shift TCO analysis.

Organisations managing operations software or manufacturing systems often discover their EA makes Azure 30-50% cheaper when all licensing is factored.

Factor 2: Team Skills and Learning Curves

Team Background	Easier Ramp-Up
Windows/Microsoft developers	Azure (significantly)
Linux/open source developers	AWS (slightly)
No cloud experience	Azure (slightly simpler)
Coming from VMware	Both viable
DevOps-first teams	AWS (broader ecosystem)

Reality check: The platform your team can learn fastest and operate confidently is the right choice. Switching costs are high; skill gaps are expensive. Organisational learning happens in quarters, not weeks.

Budget 3-6 months for teams to become productive on their first cloud platform. Second cloud platform adds another 3-6 months and splits focus.

Professional custom software development teams can accelerate this learning curve, but there's no substitute for hands-on experience.

Factor 3: Application Portfolio Alignment

Application Types	Better Fit
.NET applications	Azure (native support)
Java/Python/Node.js	Either (both excellent)
Legacy Windows apps	Azure (lift-and-shift friendly)
Containerized microservices	Either (both have mature K8s)
Big data/analytics	Both good; Azure has tighter Power BI integration
IoT edge computing	Both excellent; Azure has simpler edge model
SAP workloads	Both certified; slight Azure edge for Windows-based

For organisations migrating education platforms or travel & hospitality systems, application technology stack matters more than cloud platform capabilities.

Factor 4: Partner and Vendor Ecosystem

Consideration	Implication
Main software vendors on AWS	Choose AWS for easier integration
Main software vendors on Azure	Choose Azure for native support
Consulting partners favor one	Consider alignment for support
Industry-specific solutions	Check marketplace availability
Startup investor preferences	VCs often expect AWS for startups

The reality: If your critical third-party applications (ERP, CRM, industry-specific software) run better on one platform, that platform wins regardless of other factors.

Factor 5: Pricing and Commercial Terms

The truth about cloud pricing:

• Comparable services are typically within 10-15% of each other when properly optimised
• Enterprise agreements can swing pricing 30-50% in either direction
• Committed use discounts (reserved instances, savings plans) vary significantly by negotiation
• Microsoft often bundles Azure credits with Microsoft 365 E5 licenses
• AWS startup programs provide substantial first-year credits

Our experience: Azure often "wins" on price for Microsoft shops due to license bundling and hybrid benefits. AWS often wins on technical price comparisons when starting fresh without Microsoft dependencies.

Pro tip: Both vendors negotiate aggressively for enterprise commitments. Credible competition (considering both) improves terms on either platform.

Organisations implementing logistics management or sales & marketing systems should model 3-year TCO, including license costs, not just compute pricing.

Real-World Decision Scenarios

Scenario 1: Migrating Enterprise Windows Workloads

Situation: 200 Windows servers, SQL Server databases, Active Directory, Microsoft 365

Recommendation: Azure

Why:

• Azure Hybrid Benefit saves 40-80% on Windows and SQL Server licensing
• Native Active Directory integration eliminates complexity
• SQL Server runs best on Azure (Microsoft's direct optimisation)
• Unified management with existing Microsoft tooling (System Centre, Intune)
• Seamless integration with Microsoft 365 for identity

AWS would require:

• Purchasing Windows licenses separately (more expensive)
• AD Connector setup and ongoing management
• Third-party tools for unified management
• More complex identity federation

Verdict: Azure saves $200K-400K annually on a 200-server migration vs. AWS due to licensing alone.

Scenario 2: Modern Cloud-Native Startup

Situation: New application, containerised microservices, polyglot development team, no legacy

Recommendation: AWS

Why:

• Broader service ecosystem for experimentation
• Stronger startup program with $100K+ credits
• Larger developer community and more code examples
• More granular service options (can optimise costs)
• Better documentation for bleeding-edge services

Azure would work fine too, but:

• Less startup ecosystem engagement
• Fewer open-source examples
• Startup programs are smaller

Verdict: AWS provides better developer experience and startup support for greenfield applications.

Scenario 3: Enterprise Data Analytics Platform

Situation: Building a data lake with analytics, ML, and BI capabilities

Recommendation: Either (slight Azure edge for Microsoft BI users)

Why Azure might edge ahead:

• Synapse Analytics is well-integrated end-to-end
• Native Power BI integration (if you use Power BI)
• Azure Data Lake Storage Gen2 is excellent
• Simpler pricing model for analytics workloads

Why AWS might edge ahead:

• More data engineering service options (EMR, Glue, Athena, Redshift)
• Better Apache Spark ecosystem maturity
• More third-party analytics tool integration
• More granular cost optimisation opportunities

Verdict: If you're heavily invested in Microsoft BI (Power BI, Excel), choose Azure. Otherwise, evaluate based on specific analytics tools and team skills.

Scenario 4: Multi-Region Global Application

Situation: Latency-sensitive application serving users worldwide with complex traffic management

Recommendation: AWS (slight edge)

Why:

• More global regions (33 vs. Azure's 60+, but AWS regions are more granular)
• Better traffic management capabilities (Route 53, Global Accelerator)
• More mature multi-region deployment patterns
• CloudFront CDN is more feature-rich

Azure is catching up:

• Now has 60+ regions globally
• Azure Front Door provides multi-region load balancing
• Excellent for most multi-region needs

Verdict: For complex global traffic management, AWS has the edge. For standard multi-region high availability, either platform works well.

Organisations deploying Web3 applications or AR/VR platforms requiring low-latency global distribution should evaluate regional coverage carefully.

Common Misconceptions Debunked

I. "AWS Is Always Cheaper"

Reality: Depends entirely on workload and commercial terms.

• Azure Hybrid Benefit makes Azure 40-80% cheaper for Windows workloads
• AWS is often 10-15% cheaper for Linux containers and open-source workloads
• Enterprise agreements swing pricing dramatically in both directions
• Spot/preemptible instance pricing favours AWS by ~5-10%

Bottom line: Run actual cost calculators with your specific workload and licensing situation.

II. "Azure Is Only for Microsoft Shops"

Reality: Azure runs Linux workloads excellently. 60%+ of Azure VMs are Linux, not Windows.

• Kubernetes (AKS) is excellent on Azure
• PostgreSQL and MySQL run great on Azure
• Azure is a legitimate choice for any workload, not just Windows

This misconception keeps teams from evaluating Azure fairly.

III. "AWS Has More Services, So It's Better"

Reality: AWS has ~200 services; Azure has ~150+. Nobody uses more than 20-30 services.

Having 200 services doesn't help if you only use 15. Service breadth is a vendor talking point, not a decision criterion.

What matters: Does the platform have the specific 10-15 services you need, and are they mature and well-documented?

IV. "Multi-Cloud Is the Answer"

Reality: Multi-cloud adds 20-40% complexity and cost without proportional benefits.

Multi-cloud adds:

• Duplicate tooling and monitoring costs
• Split team attention and expertise
• Cross-cloud data transfer charges (expensive)
• More complex security and compliance
• Harder incident response

Multi-cloud is justified for:

• Best-of-breed requirements (Azure for ML, AWS for analytics)
• Regulatory geographic distribution requirements
• Disaster recovery across providers (expensive but valid)
• Acquisition integration (temporary state)

Multi-cloud is NOT justified for:

• Avoiding vendor lock-in (you'll still be locked in, just to multiple vendors)
• "Flexibility" (switching costs are prohibitive regardless)
• Negotiation leverage (doesn't work as well as teams think)

V. "We Can Switch Later If We Choose Wrong"

Reality: Cloud lock-in is real, and switching is expensive.

Switching costs include:

• Data egress charges (can be six figures for large datasets)
• Application refactoring for platform-specific services
• Team retraining (6-12 months productivity hit)
• Tooling and process changes

Year 1: Easy to switch (not much built yet)

Year 3: Hard and expensive (data gravity, team expertise, technical debt)

Year 5: Extremely expensive or impractical

Make a thoughtful choice upfront—treat cloud platform selection like ERP selection, not like switching SaaS tools.

The Bottom Line

After operating production workloads on both platforms for 70+ enterprise clients, here's our honest assessment:

Choose Azure if:

Choose AWS if:

Either Platform Works If:

The Honest Final Word

Both AWS and Azure are excellent cloud platforms. You will not fail due to choosing the "wrong" platform—you'll fail due to poor execution on the right platform.

The winners we've seen invest in:

• Deep platform expertise (pick one and master it)
• Continuous optimisation (FinOps is a practice, not a project)
• Architecture modernisation (cloud-native, not lift-and-shift)
• Team development (certifications, training, hands-on experience)

The right answer for your organisation isn't in a feature comparison matrix—it's in an honest assessment of your existing investments, team capabilities, and strategic direction.

Don't overthink it. Pick the platform that aligns with your situation, commit fully, and execute excellently.

The platform that your team operates well beats the "better" platform operated poorly, every single time.

Need Help Choosing the Right Cloud Platform?

Don't navigate cloud platform selection alone. Get expert guidance based on your specific situation.

Get a Free Cloud Strategy Assessment →

Explore Our Cloud Development Services →

Read Real-World Cloud Migration Stories →

Visit Our Blog for Cloud Strategy Insights →

Explore Our Complete Product Portfolio →

Platform comparison based on operating production workloads on both AWS and Azure for 70+ enterprise clients by AgileSoftLabs. Our cloud development services and custom software solutions help organizations across healthcare, finance, manufacturing, and technology sectors make informed cloud platform decisions aligned with their strategic objectives and team capabilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is one platform more reliable than the other?

Both platforms offer 99.9-99.99% SLA for core services. Both have had notable outages (AWS us-east-1 in 2021, Azure in 2023).

Reliability depends more on how you architect for resilience than which cloud you choose:

• Multi-AZ deployments
• Automated failover
• Graceful degradation
• Regular DR testing

A poorly architected AWS deployment is less reliable than a well-architected Azure deployment, and vice versa.

2. Which has better support?

Enterprise support is similar in quality and pricing ($15K/month minimum for both).

Our experience:

• AWS support response times are slightly faster for general issues
• Azure support is better for Microsoft-specific issues (SQL Server, AD, Windows)
• Both provide excellent TAM (Technical Account Manager) programs for large spends

If you're spending $500K+ annually, both will provide white-glove support. Under that threshold, support quality varies by individual support engineer more than by platform.

3. Which is easier to learn?

Azure is generally easier for people with a Microsoft/Windows background. The Azure Portal UX is more intuitive for those familiar with Microsoft products.

AWS has more learning resources overall:

• Better documentation (generally acknowledged)
• More third-party courses and certifications
• Larger community (Stack Overflow, forums)
• More open-source examples

Neither is "easy"—both require significant investment (3-6 months for proficiency). Don't underestimate the learning curve.

4. What about Google Cloud Platform (GCP)?

GCP is excellent for specific workloads:

• Data analytics and BigQuery (best-in-class)
• Machine learning with TensorFlow
• Kubernetes (Google invented it; GKE is excellent)
• Organisations using Google Workspace

GCP is third in market share (~10%) but first in some specific capabilities.

Consider GCP if:

• You're Google Workspace-centric (like Shopify, Spotify)
• Doing heavy analytics/ML (like Etsy, Twitter)
• Want best-in-class Kubernetes (like Goldman Sachs for some workloads)

Most enterprises choose AWS or Azure first due to broader service offerings and larger partner ecosystems.

5. Can we use both AWS and Azure?

Yes, but deliberately. Some multi-cloud scenarios make sense:

Good reasons:

• Azure for identity/M365 integration + AWS for compute (if your team knows AWS better)
• Azure for Windows workloads + AWS for containerised Linux apps
• Best-of-breed for specific capabilities (Azure ML + AWS analytics)

Bad reasons:

• Running identical workloads on both for "flexibility" (adds 40% cost and complexity)
• Avoiding vendor lock-in (you'll be locked into both)
• Negotiation leverage (doesn't work as well as expected)

If you do multi-cloud: Assign workloads deliberately by platform strength, not for redundancy.

6. How do we evaluate for our specific situation?

Run pilots on both platforms:

1. Both offer free tiers and trial credits
2. Build a representative workload (not "Hello World") on each
3. Measure operational experience (not just features)
4. Get actual pricing quotes for your scale (not calculator estimates)
5. Test integration with your existing systems
6. Assess the team's learning curve honestly

Budget 4-8 weeks for a proper evaluation. Shortcut evaluations lead to expensive mistakes.

Organisations can partner with cloud development experts to accelerate evaluation and avoid common pitfalls.

7. What about vendor lock-in concerns?

Both platforms create lock-in. The question isn't "how do we avoid lock-in?" but "how do we mitigate risk?"

Mitigation strategies:

• Use portable technologies where possible (containers, standard databases)
• Avoid proprietary services for critical paths (or accept the trade-off)
• Keep architecture options open for key components
• Invest in infrastructure-as-code (CloudFormation, Terraform, Bicep)
• Accept that some lock-in is the cost of managed services

Reality: The productivity and reliability benefits of managed services (RDS, Azure SQL, Lambda, etc.) outweigh theoretical portability for most organisations.

Don't sacrifice 40% operational efficiency to maintain theoretical portability you'll never use.

8. Which is better for regulated industries (healthcare, finance)?

Both have extensive compliance certifications:

• HIPAA, SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS
• Industry-specific certifications (FedRAMP, HITRUST)

Azure advantages:

• Azure Government (dedicated regions for government)
• Strong enterprise relationships with healthcare (Epic, Cerner partnerships)
• Better for organisations heavily invested in Microsoft compliance tooling

AWS advantages:

• AWS GovCloud (dedicated to government)
• Strong presence in financial services (Capital One, Goldman Sachs)
• More granular compliance controls

Both work well for regulated industries. The decision should be based on other factors (existing relationships, technology stack, team skills).

Organisations implementing healthcare platforms or financial management systems will find that both platforms meet compliance requirements.

9. How do we handle existing investments in one platform?

Switching platforms costs 12-24 months of productivity plus direct migration costs.

If you're established on one platform:

• The bar for switching should be extremely high
• Optimise your current platform before considering migration
• "Grass is always greener" rarely justifies switching costs

When switching might make sense:

• Acquisition creating $500K+ annual savings opportunity
• The current platform lacks the critical capability you need
• Contract renewal with unfavourable terms
• Technical debt makes the  current platform untenable

Most organisations should invest in optimising their current platform rather than switching. The switching costs typically exceed 2-3 years of potential savings.

10. What's the single most important factor in choosing?

Team capability.

The platform your team can operate confidently and efficiently beats the technically "better" platform every single time.

Cloud operations are hard:

• Security requires constant vigilance
• Cost optimisation is an ongoing discipline
• Incident response demands deep platform knowledge
• Architecture decisions have long-term consequences

Organisational learning is slow:

• 3-6 months to productivity
• 12-18 months to maturity
• 24+ months to expertise

Choose the platform that:

1. Your team can learn the fastest
2. Aligns with existing skills and investments
3. You can commit to it for 3+ years
4. Has the specific services you need

Technical feature comparisons matter less than organisational fit and execution capability.