Cloud Migration Providers: Comparing Systems Integrators, Dev Shops, and Self-Service Platforms

TL;DR

• Large systems integrators such as IBM, Accenture, Deloitte, Rackspace, and Kyndryl manage broad migration programs. They fit regulated enterprises with complex legacy estates.
• Dev-shop staff augmentation adds external engineers who work under your technical leadership. It fits migrations with a settled architecture, a clear roadmap, and limited internal capacity.
• Self-service platforms let you run a migration through software while keeping control of your cloud account. Qovery fits teams moving from Heroku, Render, or ECS to AWS, GCP, or Azure without a full rebuild or consultancy.

The three ways teams run a cloud migration

Your cloud migration strategy starts with an operating-model decision. You need to decide who owns delivery, who performs the migration work, and whether existing applications remain intact or undergo rearchitecture.

A systems integrator takes responsibility for a large migration program and supplies the consultants, project management, and technical specialists needed to deliver it. Providers such as IBM, Accenture, Deloitte, Rackspace, and Kyndryl can coordinate cloud work with security, compliance, and legacy modernization. Their engagements often change the surrounding architecture as part of a broader enterprise program.

A staff-augmentation dev shop supplies engineers who work under your technical leadership and follow your existing roadmap. You retain responsibility for architecture, priorities, and delivery. A Simform-style provider adds capacity when you already know how the migration should work but lack enough people to execute it.

A self-service PaaS-native platform gives your engineers a governed deployment layer inside a hyperscaler while leaving them responsible for the migration outcome. The platform automates infrastructure provisioning and application deployment, which reduces the specialist work required to operate AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud directly. This model can preserve existing Dockerfiles, deployment patterns, and application architecture rather than requiring a broad rebuild.

Large systems integrators: built for multi-year enterprise transformation

Large systems integrators suit enterprises that need one provider to coordinate a broad transformation across legacy systems, regulated workloads, and several business units. IBM and Kyndryl bring experience with mainframes, SAP, and hybrid estates. Accenture and Deloitte can supply large multidisciplinary programs, while Rackspace can migrate workloads and operate them afterward.

Their commercial model assumes substantial scope and formal procurement. Industry estimates place Accenture engagements at $250,000 to more than $1 million and Deloitte engagements at $300,000 to more than $2 million. IBM transformation programs can reach several million dollars, while large Kyndryl outsourcing agreements often run for several years. These providers usually negotiate pricing through an RFP, statement of work, or direct sales process instead of publishing a rate card.

Large enterprises accept that overhead because procurement, security, application modernization, and managed operations may need coordinated ownership. A provider can supply specialists across those functions and remain accountable throughout a long program. Rackspace fits particularly well when you want the same partner to run the migrated environment, although buyers should confirm any application reengineering requirements during scoping.

Smaller product companies often encounter more process than their migration requires. Procurement cycles delay the start, and large delivery groups add meetings, approvals, and coordination work. Reviewers have described Accenture's scale and processes as difficult to manage without careful coordination, while IBM engagements require tight scoping because of the breadth of its offerings and higher pricing.

Cloud-native workloads also weaken the case for a large integrator. Kyndryl's model fits complex legacy estates better than smaller cloud-native builds. If you already run containerized applications and mainly need to move them onto AWS, Azure, or GCP, an enterprise transformation program may add cost and delay without solving a correspondingly complex problem.

Dev-shop staff augmentation: extra hands under your architecture

A Simform-style staff augmentation engagement gives you engineers who work within your existing architecture, tools, and management structure. You assign their work, review their decisions, and own the migration outcome. By contrast, an outsourced consultancy brings its own project management structure and accepts responsibility for a defined deliverable, such as an architecture or migration plan (BridgeView).

Staff augmentation buys capacity without transferring project ownership. Providers usually bill by the hour or week under a time-and-materials model, so your priorities determine where contractors spend their time (ConsultAdd). Placement can also move faster than a project-based consulting engagement. KORE1 reports placement times of 3 to 10 business days for contractors using common technology stacks, while fixed-scope outsourcing can require weeks of discovery and contract negotiation (KORE1).

Staff augmentation fits when your cloud migration strategy already defines the target architecture and migration sequence. A strong internal technical lead must direct the contractors, resolve tradeoffs, and maintain governance. Choose this path when you need temporary engineering capacity or specialized cloud skills but want to retain control. If you still need someone to define the roadmap or accept responsibility for delivery, staff augmentation leaves those needs unresolved.

Self-service PaaS-native platforms: migrate without a rebuild

A self-service PaaS-native platform lets you migrate applications into a hyperscaler account without building the entire operating layer yourself. The model suits teams leaving Heroku or Render, or replacing a manually managed ECS setup, when they want cloud control without hiring cloud migration consultants.

Demand for this option has grown as managed platforms have become less predictable. Aptible reports that Salesforce moved Heroku into sustaining engineering in February 2026, ending new feature development and freezing its compliance roadmap. Moving directly to AWS, GCP, or Azure transfers networking, access control, deployment pipelines, monitoring, and on-call work to your engineers. A useful cost comparison therefore includes infrastructure spending, engineering time, operational support, and compliance work.

Qovery provides a platform layer while running workloads and storing data inside your AWS, GCP, or Azure account. Policy-as-code guardrails control deployments, and audit trails record operator activity. Qovery can use existing Dockerfiles or Procfiles, which reduces the application changes required for migration. Databases and managed add-ons may still need separate migration plans, but you do not need to recreate the deployment platform before moving workloads.

Customer-reported results show how the model performs in specific migrations. SoFive reports that it migrated to EKS with Qovery in 10 days. Alan reports that deployment time fell from 55 minutes to 8 minutes after moving from Elastic Beanstalk. These examples indicate that a platform-led migration can shorten infrastructure work, though they are customer reports rather than independent benchmarks.

Self-service platforms often provide less guidance than consultancies after signup. Qovery pairs product access with hands-on onboarding and ongoing support. The company reports an average customer satisfaction score of 4.8 out of 5 for August 2025 through August 2026. You retain ownership of the cloud migration strategy while receiving implementation guidance without paying for embedded consulting staff.

Comparison table: which path fits your migration

Compare each model by its operating structure rather than by cloud vendor certifications.

How to choose based on your migration's real constraints

Start with the estate's scale and regulatory complexity. Choose a large systems integrator when the migration spans legacy systems, multiple business units, or strict compliance obligations that require formal governance. For a contained set of cloud-native workloads, the procurement and coordination overhead described earlier may exceed the project's needs.

Next, determine whether your roadmap and target architecture are already set. Staff augmentation fits when an internal technical lead can direct contractors and retain ownership of the outcome. If you still need someone to define the architecture or migration sequence, extra engineering capacity will not fill that leadership gap.

Finally, decide whether the workloads need rearchitecture or a controlled move into governed cloud infrastructure. A self-service platform fits when your applications can retain their existing packaging and deployment model while moving into AWS, Azure, or GCP. For example, Qovery suits teams moving off Heroku, Render, or ECS that want policy controls without rebuilding their delivery platform. Applications that require deep modernization need architectural work before a platform-led migration can begin.

Use the comparison table to test the resulting choice against ownership and engagement length. A provider can support the correct cloud destination while still imposing an operating model that your team cannot sustain.