Wisconsin Colocation

Colocation vs Public Cloud:
Cost and Control Trade-offs

Public cloud is excellent for variable workloads. For steady, predictable workloads the total cost and control equation often favors colocation or bare metal.

Where cloud wins

  • • Workloads that scale up and down dramatically
  • • Teams that want to avoid any hardware or facilities responsibility
  • • Need for many geographic regions with minimal setup
  • • Short-term projects where capital expenditure is undesirable

Where colocation usually wins on cost

  • • Predictable power and hardware ownership (amortized over 3 years)
  • • No egress surprises
  • • Long-term rate stability
  • • Steady database, application, or high-density compute workloads

Control differences

FactorColocationPublic Cloud
Hardware choiceFullLimited to provider options
Physical accessYes (or remote hands)None
Network designYour switches, your topologyProvider networking
Exit costMove the hardwareData transfer + re-architecture

Bottom Line

For many steady-state workloads the three-year total cost of ownership is lower in colocation once you account for hardware, power, and bandwidth. You also retain physical control and avoid some of the operational surprises that come with shared cloud infrastructure.

Workloads can move between models

Contact Us

How to calculate a fair three-year comparison

Include hardware lifecycle costs

Add server and networking purchases, warranties, spares and eventual replacement or resale value.

Model ongoing costs

Compare rack space, power, bandwidth, remote hands, staffing, backups and disaster recovery against cloud compute, storage, egress and support.

Value flexibility appropriately

Cloud elasticity and managed services may justify a higher monthly cost. Colocation may be attractive for steady loads, but savings depend on utilization and staffing.

Related reading

Browse all Netsonic articles

-->