A quiet comparison
Infrastructure decisions rarely fail because the “wrong” model was chosen. They fail because trade-offs were misunderstood, undocumented, or ignored.
This comparison is not a verdict. It’s a way to think clearly about cloud, self-hosted, and hybrid approaches — and when each makes sense.
Public cloud
The cloud offers speed, convenience, and abstraction. It reduces the need to think about infrastructure — until infrastructure matters.
Strengths
- Fast to start and easy to scale initially
- No upfront capital expenditure
- Broad ecosystem of managed services
- Well-suited to experimentation and burst workloads
Trade-offs
- Costs can be difficult to predict or defend long-term
- Architectures often become tightly coupled to vendor services
- Limited control during outages or policy changes
- Exit paths exist, but are rarely exercised or rehearsed
Cloud works best when flexibility is more important than control, and when dependency risk is understood and accepted.
Self-hosted infrastructure
Self-hosting replaces abstraction with ownership. It brings responsibility closer — and makes consequences clearer.
Strengths
- Predictable, defensible costs over time
- Clear understanding of where data lives and how it’s accessed
- Direct control during incidents
- Exit paths are explicit and testable
Trade-offs
- Requires deliberate design and operational discipline
- Responsibility cannot be outsourced away
- Scaling requires planning rather than abstraction
Self-hosting works best when stability, clarity, and long-term control matter more than short-term convenience.
Hybrid approaches
Hybrid infrastructure combines models — often pragmatically rather than ideologically.
In practice, this usually means keeping some workloads in the cloud while bringing others under direct control.
Strengths
- Allows gradual change rather than abrupt transitions
- Retains cloud benefits where they are genuinely useful
- Reduces dependency risk for critical systems
- Supports phased exits and reversible decisions
Trade-offs
- Requires careful boundary definition
- Operational complexity can increase if poorly designed
- Governance must be explicit to avoid accidental sprawl
Hybrid works best when decisions are intentional, boundaries are clear, and complexity is actively managed.
A quieter way to decide
The most important question is not: “Which model is best?”
It is: “Which trade-offs are we consciously choosing — and which are we accepting by default?”
Mature organisations often evolve over time:
- Starting in the cloud for speed
- Stabilising critical systems under direct control
- Using hybrid models to retain flexibility without dependency
The common thread is not ideology, but intent.
Where RefugeX fits
RefugeX does not push a single model.
We help organisations:
- Understand their current dependency position
- Clarify realistic exit and transition options
- Design infrastructure that supports change rather than resisting it
Sometimes that leads to self-hosting. Sometimes it leads to hybrid. Sometimes it leads to staying put — with eyes open.
Clarity before commitment
You don’t need to choose a direction immediately. You just need to understand your position.
Start a conversation