Is multi-cloud actually worth the complexity, or is it mostly resume-driven architecture at this point?

[u/krishna_clouds]

There is a narrative that every serious/big company needs a multi-cloud strategy for operating, but in practice a lot of multi-cloud setups seem to add IAM sprawl, duplicating of tools, or excess costs without a clear breakdown. On the other hand, there are legitimate cases (GPU availability, region-specific compliance, avoiding single-vendor outages taking down everything) where running more than one cloud is a real requirement, not just a checkbox.

[u/ajitnk]

Honestly, most multi-cloud setups I've seen are resume-driven, not architecture-driven. AWS's own prescriptive guidance is pretty blunt about it: organizations that adopt multiple cloud providers concurrently "often regret that decision and the complexity it introduces."

The three myths that usually drive it are resilience (multi-cloud doesn't actually give you resilience unless your app is built for it, which almost none are), vendor lock-in (you trade one vendor's lock-in for two vendors' complexity), and better pricing (the operational overhead eats the savings fast).

The real tell is the IAM situation. If you've got separate identity silos per cloud with no unified IdP, you're not running a strategy, you're running a support burden.

That said, there are legitimate cases: a specific service genuinely unavailable on your primary cloud, an acquisition with existing contracts, or a compliance requirement. The question worth asking is whether each workload has a documented business justification or just a "the team already knew GCP" justification.

What's the actual split in your setup? AWS + Azure, AWS + GCP, or all three? The answer changes what consolidation even looks like.

[u/MissionFinOps → u/ajitnk]

Very solid points. One correction/push back, we do not wanna quote AWSs own advice or guidance in this case. For all their cloud expertise, I wouldn't want to hear their views on using more than one cloud provider. As you can see their views maybe a bit biased ;)

Infact just a short while ago AWS went against this "perspective guidance" and coloborated with gcp to better support multi cloud architecture https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content-delivery/aws-and-google-cloud-collaborate-to-simplify-multicloud-networking/

Tbh, the answer, as always is - it depends. You also say resume driven architecture, but that means a small shop, large enterprises are not driven by a single resume or architect. And often a large enterprise by default has 2 cloud providers atleast. Actually, all of my current customers are enterprises with atleast 2 CSP with production workloads byand I get asked about supporting the other 2 all the time. Is it a good idea to be multi cloud? It depends. I'd argue even going to the cloud alone is adding complexity, so why stop at one. We mix and match in on-prem all the time, don't go all in if you can avoid it.

[u/ajitnk → u/MissionFinOps]

Fair pushback, and you're right that AWS has an obvious incentive here — worth flagging that bias explicitly, so thanks for that.
But I think we're actually agreeing more than it looks. The examples you're describing — enterprises that inherited 2+ CSPs through M&A, or a specific service only available on one cloud — are exactly the "legitimate cases" I was pointing at, not counterexamples to it. The distinction I care about is architecture-driven (a documented reason: acquisition, compliance, service gap) vs. resume-driven (nobody can say why beyond "the team knew GCP too"). Sounds like your customer base is squarely the former.
The AWS-GCP interconnect news is a good catch though — that's a real shift, and it does complicate the "AWS discourages multi-cloud" framing a bit, since they're now actively building for it in some cases. Fair point.
Genuinely curious — for the enterprises you support, is the IAM/identity layer usually unified across their CSPs, or is that still the mess in practice even at that scale?

[u/Prestigious_Pace2782]

Always thought it was a bad idea for most companies. Still do.