Use case
Choosing a model
Deciding which model to build on — a hosted family, an open-weight one, or several behind a gateway. The decision that lasts is not which model scores highest today but which contract, licence and exit path you can live with.
- Source
- Editorial ontology entry — no fetched document behind this page
- Evidence
- none on this page — it links to the pages that hold it
- Category
- Infrastructure
- Typical risk
- medium
- Entry
- editorial · reviewed 27 Aug 2026
01What this is
Choosing a model is a question about constraints before it is a question about capability. The shortlist comes from what the work needs (languages, context length, tool calling, whether page images are involved), and it is then cut by things that have nothing to do with quality: where the endpoint processes data, what the terms say about retention and training, whether the licence permits your commercial use, and whether weights exist at all if the answer has to run on your own hardware.
A good decision keeps the choice reversible. Calling models through one interface — a gateway or an adapter of your own — means a model that is withdrawn, repriced or found to be non-compliant is a configuration change rather than a rewrite. Evaluate on your own task with your own examples, because a public leaderboard measures a different job from yours, and re-run that evaluation when a version changes.
Pitfalls: picking on a benchmark that nobody re-ran on the real data; a model whose licence carries a revenue threshold or a non-commercial clause discovered after launch; and pinning to a preview version that is deprecated inside a year. Note also that "the same model" on a vendor's own API, on a hyperscaler and through a gateway can be three different contracts over identical weights.
- Typical data
- internal documents, client documents, source code, personal data
- Solution classes it admits
- Model API, Private cloud, Self-hosted, Enterprise SaaS
02Deployment options
- ASSESSMENT
On a neutral reading of this use case, Private cloud is recommended, Self-hosted is a strong alternative, Model API is a strong alternative and Enterprise SaaS is conditional.
- ASSESSMENT
Read as a generic reading of this page, not a recommendation: no organisation, size, jurisdiction, budget or technical capability has been supplied, so wherever an option depends on one of those, it says "unknown". Ask your own question to get a verdict that accounts for them.
Private cloud
RECOMMENDEDManaged model API or private model deployment in your cloud account
- ASSESSMENT
Two patterns fit inside one account in a region you name: call a managed foundation-model API such as Amazon Bedrock, Microsoft Foundry / Azure OpenAI, or Vertex AI; or deploy an open-weight model on GPU compute you control. Your application, retrieval layer, storage, identity and logs remain in your cloud boundary in both patterns.
- ASSESSMENT
The managed-API pattern can use closed-source frontier models without buying or operating GPUs. It is usually the fastest way to build a custom workflow, but prompts and retrieved context are processed by the managed service, so model availability, retention, abuse monitoring and regional routing must be checked for the exact feature and endpoint.
- ASSESSMENT
The private-model pattern gives more control over weights, serving and network paths, and can use managed endpoints or your own containers. It also makes your team responsible for capacity, patches, model upgrades, evaluation and failover.
- ASSESSMENT
Which account you already have is a real input, not a detail: no existing cloud account was named. An organisation that already has a landing zone, an identity provider and a signed agreement with one provider is buying a feature; one that does not is buying a cloud programme, and those are different projects.
- ASSESSMENT
The cloud provider becomes a data processor in either pattern: you need a DPA, a documented region, and an answer on cross-region routing and where support staff can access the environment from.
- RECOMMENDATION
Start with the managed-API pattern when the workflow is custom but model operations are not the source of competitive advantage; move to private model serving only if evaluation, volume, portability or the data boundary justifies the extra operations. Your stated technical capability is "unknown".
- RECOMMENDATION
Recommended for this brief: one tenancy in a region you name is the smallest boundary that still gives you a frontier model, and opening an account is less work than building a server room, given stated technical capability "unknown", the brief involves confidential documents and personal data, no existing cloud account was named, and you did not ask for local processing.
Model API
STRONG ALTERNATIVEA model vendor’s API behind an application you build and own
- ASSESSMENT
You write and host the application — the interface, the retrieval layer, the database, the access control, the audit log — and call somebody else’s endpoint for the model itself. Two kinds of endpoint sit in this class: a closed model from the vendor that made it (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini, xAI, DeepSeek, Moonshot, Mistral, Cohere), and an open-weight model served by a managed inference provider (Together, Fireworks, Groq and others).
- ASSESSMENT
Those two are not interchangeable. A closed model can only be obtained from its vendor or from a cloud that licenses it, so the model and the supplier are one decision. An open-weight model can be moved: the same weights run on a managed endpoint today and on your own GPU later, which makes the provider a swappable component rather than a dependency — and makes the licence, not the contract, the document that governs what you may do with it.
- ASSESSMENT
It is the shortest path to a frontier model: no GPUs to buy, no capacity to plan, no serving stack to patch, and you can change model with a configuration line. What it costs instead is a per-token bill that scales with use and a dependency on one supplier’s availability, pricing and deprecation schedule.
- ASSESSMENT
What the supplier sees is the whole prompt: the user's question, the system instructions, and every passage your retrieval layer attached to it — which is usually the most sensitive part, because retrieval is what puts internal documents into the request. For a brief that involves confidential documents and personal data, that is the attribute to check first. What stays yours is everything else: the application, the retrieval index, the identity system, the logs, and the record of who asked what.
- ASSESSMENT
Nothing about a supplier's handling of your data is assumed here. Before real content goes near an endpoint, verify against that supplier's own documents: the data processing agreement, and that it covers the API rather than only the consumer product; whether zero-data-retention or an equivalent no-logging mode is available on your account, and on which endpoints; the default retention period for prompts and outputs, and what triggers human review; the region the request is served from, and whether that is a commitment or a routing preference; the current subprocessor list and how you are notified when it changes; the supported-countries page, which decides whether you may use the service at all.
- RECOMMENDATION
Take this route when the workflow is yours but the model is not the differentiator, and your team can build and run an application. Your stated technical capability is "unknown", which is the attribute this option most depends on. Where the same model is available inside your own cloud account, compare it against private cloud before committing — the application is identical and only the tenancy of the model changes.
- RECOMMENDATION
A strong alternative for this brief: one tenancy in a region you name is the smallest boundary that still gives you a frontier model, and opening an account is less work than building a server room, given stated technical capability "unknown", the brief involves confidential documents and personal data, no existing cloud account was named, and you did not ask for local processing.
Self-hosted
STRONG ALTERNATIVEOpen-weight models on infrastructure you operate
- ASSESSMENT
Documents, queries and embeddings stay on machines you own, using an open-weight model whose licence you review. For a brief that involves confidential documents and personal data, that removes a model-API vendor from the data path rather than governing that transfer by contract.
- ASSESSMENT
It costs you the operational work instead: a GPU server, Docker, Linux, backups and a patching routine. Your stated technical capability is "unknown", which is the attribute this option most depends on.
- ASSESSMENT
No processor agreement, subprocessor list or cross-border transfer assessment is needed for the model itself, because no third party processes the content.
- RECOMMENDATION
Recommended where local processing is preferred (you did not say so) and the content is sensitive (confidential documents and personal data).
- RECOMMENDATION
A strong alternative for this brief: one tenancy in a region you name is the smallest boundary that still gives you a frontier model, and opening an account is less work than building a server room, given stated technical capability "unknown", the brief involves confidential documents and personal data, no existing cloud account was named, and you did not ask for local processing.
Enterprise SaaS
CONSIDER IFFinished closed-source cloud product with enterprise controls
- ASSESSMENT
This is a complete vendor application, not a model API: examples include an enterprise assistant, coding copilot or document product with the workflow, interface, connectors and administration already built. It can use closed-source cloud models while requiring no model hosting or application engineering from your team.
- RECOMMENDATION
Choose it when the product already performs the actual workflow and its controls meet your requirements. Do not choose it only because its underlying model is strong: a finished SaaS product is less flexible than building against a managed API when your process, integrations or review steps are organisation-specific.
- ASSESSMENT
Vendor commitments are treated as unverified until we have fetched the page that makes them. Until then this option carries questions to ask, not assurances: a signed data processing agreement covering the data you will actually put in; a documented data residency commitment naming the region, in the contract rather than a blog post; a written no-training commitment for your content, including uploads and connected sources; stated retention periods and a deletion path you can exercise; an administrative audit log you can export, and SSO with group-based access control.
- RECOMMENDATION
No jurisdiction was named, so this is the check rather than the conclusion: compare the vendor's stated processing locations and subprocessor list against the cross-border transfer rules wherever you operate before uploading anything.
- RECOMMENDATION
Worth considering for this brief: one tenancy in a region you name is the smallest boundary that still gives you a frontier model, and opening an account is less work than building a server room, given stated technical capability "unknown", the brief involves confidential documents and personal data, no existing cloud account was named, and you did not ask for local processing.
03Deployment stacks
No deployment stack has been written up for this use case yet.
04Tools by hosting option
Self-hosted1
Private cloud6
- PlatformAmazon SageMaker AIAWS’s machine-learning platform. JumpStart deploys open-weight models into your own VPC, which is the route to self-managed weights without leaving the AWS account.
- PlatformBasetenDeploys open-weight and custom models as autoscaling endpoints, including into a customer’s own cloud account. Publishes a subprocessor list, which most inference providers do not.
- PlatformFireworks AIHosted open-weight model endpoints with fine-tuning and a dedicated-deployment tier. Publishes a data-security page and a trust centre, which is what an enterprise review will ask for.
- PlatformHugging Face Inference EndpointsDeploys any model from the Hub onto dedicated infrastructure in a chosen cloud and region, inside a private network where required. The shortest path from a Hub model to an endpoint.
- PlatformMLflowExperiment tracking, a model registry and deployment packaging. The component that lets a prediction be traced back to the model version and data that produced it.
- PlatformSambaCloudOpen-weight model endpoints on the vendor’s own accelerators, with an on-premise appliance route as well — the rare provider whose exit path is the same vendor’s hardware.
Vendor cloud3
- PlatformAlibaba Cloud Model StudioAlibaba Cloud’s model platform and the primary managed route to the Qwen family. International and mainland China consoles are separate deployments under separate agreements.
- PlatformAmazon SageMaker AIAWS’s machine-learning platform. JumpStart deploys open-weight models into your own VPC, which is the route to self-managed weights without leaving the AWS account.
- PlatformMLflowExperiment tracking, a model registry and deployment packaging. The component that lets a prediction be traced back to the model version and data that produced it.
05Compliance hot spots
This use case usually raises model training, open-source licensing, terms-of-service restrictions, acceptable-use restrictions, vendor jurisdiction, data residency, model access.
- Model training
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Open-source licensing
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Terms-of-service restrictions
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Acceptable-use restrictions
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Vendor jurisdiction
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Data residency
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Model access
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
06Example questions
Each of these opens the question box with the text already in it. The answer is researched for your organisation, not for this page.
- 01Which model should we use for a customer-facing assistant, and how do we switch later?
- 02Compare open-weight and hosted models for a team that cannot send data abroad.
- 03We need long-context document work in Chinese — which models can actually do it?
- 04How do we evaluate two models on our own data rather than on a leaderboard?
07Related use cases
- InfrastructurePrivate LLMUsing a language model without your data leaving a boundary you control — a country, a cloud region, or your own network. The constraint is where processing happens and who can see the prompts, not which model runs.
- InfrastructurePrivate company ChatGPTA chat assistant for staff that behaves like a consumer chatbot but runs under company control: your accounts, your logging, your retention, your choice of model, and optionally your own documents attached.
- InfrastructureLocal LLMRunning an open-weight model on hardware you own — a workstation, a GPU server, a laptop. The question is usually which model fits the memory you have and how many people can use it at once.
- InfrastructureChoosing a cloud platformDeciding which cloud hosts the AI work — usually between the hyperscaler you already run on and a regional or sovereign alternative. Identity, data residency and the models actually offered in your region decide it more often than the platform feature list does.
Improve this page
Sign in to contribute
From the field
0 deployments · 0 questions
Nobody has reported deploying this here yet, and no question has been opened against this page. Both appear once a reviewer accepts them.