Use case
Choosing a cloud platform
Deciding 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.
- 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
- high
- Entry
- editorial · reviewed 27 Aug 2026
01What this is
Choosing a platform is mostly a question about where you already are. The cloud that holds your identity provider, your network boundary and your data has a large and legitimate advantage, because the AI service inherits controls you have already built and audited. The comparison that matters is therefore narrow: which models are offered in the regions you may use, what the platform does with prompts and logs, whether the private-networking and customer-managed-key options you need exist there, and what the exit looks like.
A good decision is written as a small table of your own constraints — regions, identity, key management, the models on the shortlist — and filled in from each platform's own documentation rather than from a comparison article. Regional availability is the field that most often eliminates a platform, and it changes; check it for the specific model, not for the service.
Pitfalls: assuming a service available in a region processes everything in that region, including abuse monitoring and support access; assuming a model listed on a platform is available in your region of it; and treating a multi-cloud strategy as free when it doubles the identity, networking and compliance work. A single-cloud decision with a documented exit is usually stronger than a multi-cloud one nobody staffs.
- Typical data
- client documents, personal data, internal documents, financial records
- Solution classes it admits
- Private cloud, Model API, 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
Private cloud15
- PlatformAmazon BedrockAWS service offering models from several providers behind one API in a chosen region, with VPC endpoints, IAM control, guardrails and knowledge bases for retrieval.
- PlatformAmazon Bedrock AgentCoreAWS runtime for agents: session isolation, tool invocation, memory and an identity boundary, with the model served from Bedrock in the same account.
- PlatformAmazon OpenSearch ServerlessCapacity-managed OpenSearch with a vector engine, reachable over a VPC endpoint. The default index behind Bedrock Knowledge Bases when none is supplied.
- 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.
- PlatformAmazon SageMaker TrainingManaged training jobs on AWS with VPC-only networking and KMS encryption, and the model registry and endpoints to deploy what they produce.
- PlatformAzure AI SearchManaged search index with vector, keyword and hybrid retrieval, private endpoints and Entra ID security filters. The retrieval half of most Azure-hosted assistants.
- PlatformAzure Machine LearningManaged training, tracking and endpoints on Azure, with managed virtual networks and Entra ID. The Azure home for the classical-ML half of a prediction deployment.
- PlatformGoogle Vertex AIGoogle Cloud platform for Gemini and third-party models with regional endpoints, VPC Service Controls, grounding against your own data and enterprise IAM.
- PlatformIBM watsonx.aiIBM’s model platform, offering its own Granite family alongside third-party models, with a software edition that installs into a customer’s own environment.
- PlatformMicrosoft FoundryOpenAI and partner models served from a customer-selected Azure region under Azure commercial terms, with private networking, content filtering and Entra ID integration.
- PlatformMicrosoft Foundry Agent ServiceManaged agent runtime inside Microsoft Foundry, with tool connections, threads and Entra ID identity. The Azure counterpart to Bedrock AgentCore.
- PlatformOCI Generative AIOracle Cloud’s managed model service, with dedicated clusters and a published per-region list of which pretrained models are actually served where.
- PlatformVertex AI Agent EngineGoogle Cloud’s managed runtime for deployed agents, including sessions and a memory bank, with the agent framework left to the developer.
- PlatformVertex AI SearchGoogle Cloud’s managed retrieval service over your own data, with connectors and access controls, plus a separate vector-search product for embeddings you generate yourself.
- PlatformVertex AI TrainingManaged custom training jobs on Google Cloud, with VPC Service Controls and customer-managed keys, paired with Vertex AI endpoints for serving the result.
Vendor cloud17
- 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 BedrockAWS service offering models from several providers behind one API in a chosen region, with VPC endpoints, IAM control, guardrails and knowledge bases for retrieval.
- PlatformAmazon Bedrock AgentCoreAWS runtime for agents: session isolation, tool invocation, memory and an identity boundary, with the model served from Bedrock in the same account.
- PlatformAmazon OpenSearch ServerlessCapacity-managed OpenSearch with a vector engine, reachable over a VPC endpoint. The default index behind Bedrock Knowledge Bases when none is supplied.
- 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.
- PlatformAmazon SageMaker TrainingManaged training jobs on AWS with VPC-only networking and KMS encryption, and the model registry and endpoints to deploy what they produce.
- PlatformAzure AI SearchManaged search index with vector, keyword and hybrid retrieval, private endpoints and Entra ID security filters. The retrieval half of most Azure-hosted assistants.
- PlatformAzure Machine LearningManaged training, tracking and endpoints on Azure, with managed virtual networks and Entra ID. The Azure home for the classical-ML half of a prediction deployment.
- PlatformGemini EnterpriseGoogle Cloud’s enterprise agent and search product, the successor branding for the Vertex AI agent surface. Publishes zero-data-retention and data-residency pages for the service.
- PlatformGoogle Vertex AIGoogle Cloud platform for Gemini and third-party models with regional endpoints, VPC Service Controls, grounding against your own data and enterprise IAM.
- PlatformIBM watsonx.aiIBM’s model platform, offering its own Granite family alongside third-party models, with a software edition that installs into a customer’s own environment.
- PlatformMicrosoft FoundryOpenAI and partner models served from a customer-selected Azure region under Azure commercial terms, with private networking, content filtering and Entra ID integration.
- PlatformMicrosoft Foundry Agent ServiceManaged agent runtime inside Microsoft Foundry, with tool connections, threads and Entra ID identity. The Azure counterpart to Bedrock AgentCore.
- PlatformOCI Generative AIOracle Cloud’s managed model service, with dedicated clusters and a published per-region list of which pretrained models are actually served where.
- PlatformVertex AI Agent EngineGoogle Cloud’s managed runtime for deployed agents, including sessions and a memory bank, with the agent framework left to the developer.
- PlatformVertex AI SearchGoogle Cloud’s managed retrieval service over your own data, with connectors and access controls, plus a separate vector-search product for embeddings you generate yourself.
- PlatformVertex AI TrainingManaged custom training jobs on Google Cloud, with VPC Service Controls and customer-managed keys, paired with Vertex AI endpoints for serving the result.
On-premise (enterprise plan)1
05Compliance hot spots
This use case usually raises data residency, cross-border transfers, vendor jurisdiction, subprocessors, data processing agreement, standard contractual clauses, security, retention.
- Data residency
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Cross-border transfers
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Vendor jurisdiction
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Subprocessors
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Data processing agreement
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Standard contractual clauses
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Security
- No published jurisdiction page names this topic yet
- Retention
- 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.
- 01Is Azure OpenAI, Amazon Bedrock or Vertex AI the safer home for EU customer data?
- 02We are already on AWS — is there a reason to run the AI work somewhere else?
- 03Which cloud can serve the models we need from a region inside our jurisdiction?
- 04Compare a hyperscaler against a sovereign European provider for a regulated workload.
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 modelDeciding 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.
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.