Enterprises subscribe to public cloud offerings for cost-effectiveness and easy scalability. Within the public cloud, the trend is towards a multi-cloud strategy. The cloud user spreads their public cloud usage over multiple infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) providers. For instance, users may host application front-ends with Microsoft Azure. But they may opt for Amazon Web Services (AWS) to power back end functionality.

Such a multi-cloud strategy involves splitting computing workloads with a minimum of two public cloud vendors in the mix. In enterprises with weak IT governance, multi-cloud emerges by default. Autonomous development teams choose different public clouds for their workloads.

A multi-cloud strategy is a double-edged sword, offering advantages and disadvantages. Here are the pros and cons of the multi-cloud approach from the perspective of cost, performance, security, and resilience.

1. Cost

A multi-cloud strategy is often part of a cost optimization mix. Enterprises may transfer workloads depending on the best available pricing models. For instance, an enterprise may use AWS spot instances by default. When such spot instances become too expensive, they may switch loads to low-priority VMs on Azure or Google Cloud.

At the time of renewal, when companies negotiate cloud prices with the vendor, the ability to walk away gives excellent leverage. A multi-cloud strategy allows the enterprise to negotiate a custom price plan or get some other concessions.

But a multi-cloud strategy does not always make financial sense, more so when enormous volumes are at play. When enterprises split loads between platforms, they lose out on volume discounts.

Here are five ways to reduce costs in a multi cloud environment. 

2. App development effort

Developing multi-cloud apps costs more than developing apps that leverage the native features of an IaaS vendor.

The basic computing, networking, and storage services offered by any cloud vendor are the same. The differentiation is on proprietary functionalities and tooling. Enterprises may containerize such simple workloads and make them cloud-agnostic. Portability becomes an issue only when the app needs advanced features such as Azure’s Cosmos DB or Amazon EBS. Workloads that run on a single IaaS platform can leverage the native tools and features.

Building cloud-agnostic apps as part of a multi-cloud strategy means higher upfront costs and time. Most cloud specialists specialise in one platform, be it AWS or Azure. Hiring expertise to fill knowledge gaps in a multi-cloud environment adds to the cost. Also, big cloud providers such as AWS provide great native tooling for developers. Developing apps on a single IaaS platform is straightforward and cost-effective.

The extra costs and resources for developing multi-cloud apps may save the enterprise from larger expenses and headaches later. Switching workloads easily could deliver significant savings. Providers offering steep discounts, or incumbents raising tariffs, are commonplace. In such instances, the higher upfront development cost pays back quickly. But the enterprise needs scale to justify the cost arbitrage.

3. Application performance

The concept of “workload” has evolved over the years. Today’s workloads include a set of diverse components. Each component may work better in one cloud platform over another. Thus, achieving optimal performance depends on running different components on different cloud platforms.

Enterprises orchestrating advanced multi-cloud strategies may spread single user transactions across multiple providers. Doing so leverages the technical strengths of each provider while neutralising their weaknesses.

Also, multi-cloud reduces latency and improves speed. When data travels from a distant server, delays occur. Selecting different vendors, with strong footprints in different geographies, improves speed and enhances the user experience. 

But such resiliency comes with added cost. A multi-cloud duplicates costs and makes the network complex. Workload or application management becomes a challenge.

Mastering DevOps to run workloads is difficult. Running workloads in any cloud requires a deep understanding of the nuances and particularities of each cloud. It requires investment in recruiting experience or training incumbent employees. A multi-cloud strategy multiplies such investment. Running multi-cloud apps without DevOps expertise could become counterproductive. The enterprise incurs more costs and becomes less agile.

Resiliency benefits often outweigh the extra resources and effort required to manage the network. But unless the performance benefits from such an approach are significant, the move will not be cost-effective.

4. Security

Security is a double-edged sword in a multi-cloud environment.

The multi-cloud strategy increases security costs. It duplicates potential points of failure, forcing the enterprise to invest more in network security. IT teams will have to prevent leakage over multiple cloud platforms. Securing each platform in the multi-cloud environment needs extra time and effort. But the effort may well be worth it, as the enterprise remains immune from the cloud providers’ potential point of failure.

There are spin-off security benefits with multi-cloud as well. Many enterprises use a multi-cloud strategy to split sensitive data loads into a more secure cloud environment.

Multi-cloud also offers protection against brute force DDoS attacks. Users may move loads between IaaS platforms until the platform under attack restores services.

A multi-cloud environment often becomes handy for compliance. Enterprises move data loads to a data centre in a specific geography to comply with data sovereignty requirements.

5. Resiliency

A multi-cloud approach makes the enterprise resilient. It spares the expense and headache of redesigning the app to move workloads from one cloud provider to another for any reason. Enterprises may drop the vendor and move on if things go downhill or if the vendor does not fulfil promises.

The multi-cloud strategy also reduces the risk of downtime. Such major outages are rare, but they happen. If the primary cloud cannot process a particular service, another cloud takes over. The transaction occurs seamlessly over the front end, with the user not realising the switch-over in the back end. Such 100% availability is mission-critical, especially for e-commerce and financial transactions.

A multi-cloud strategy transfers the balance of power from the vendor to the subscriber. Dodging the risks of vendor lock-in often overrides all the disadvantages of multi-cloud.

Multi-cloud is popular. Statista reveals that 90% of large enterprises, 75% of mid-sized businesses and 60% of small companies have a multi-cloud approach. The figure will touch 94%, 84%, and 79%, respectively, by 2023.

A multi-cloud strategy often makes the enterprise agile, improves performance, and saves money. If the risk of relying on one public cloud vendor is high, a multi-cloud approach is a straightforward decision. But despite such a strong trend towards multi-cloud, it is not always the best fit, especially when done the wrong way. Whether to adopt a multi-cloud strategy depends on the circumstances of the enterprise. Do a thorough cost-benefit analysis upfront and identify the pros and cons specific to your enterprise..