Moving to an EU cloud: the decision logic most teams skip

This article lays out the assumptions that fail in practice, what companies actually gain, trade-offs that surface later, and how to assess whether this alternative is viable for your platform.

Drivers behind EU cloud adoption

EU-based cloud providers are back on leadership agendas because they offer businesses clearer jurisdiction and governance.

For years, European companies have stored data in AWS, Azure, GCP, OCI, and other US clouds because of mature ecosystems, rich tooling, and managed services. Over time, that convenience came with a growing dependency on US laws and government decisions, pushing business leaders to look for alternatives.

The first driver is the compliance burden. EU laws allow data transfers outside the EU/EEA, but every cross-border data movement must be justified, controlled, and defensible in an audit. For leadership teams, EU cloud looks like a simpler way: fewer transfer pathways, fewer assumptions to validate, and a compliance position that is easier to explain to regulators and enterprise customers.

The second driver is the US jurisdiction concern. Even if workloads reside in EU regions of US hyperscalers, the questions still remain: who controls the provider and who can compel access? Under the CLOUD Act framework, US authorities can require a US-based service provider to produce data that is in its possession or control, regardless of where that data is physically stored.

The fuel is added by politics. In January 2025, Reuters reported that the Trump administration asked the Democratic members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) to resign. This strengthened the concern that oversight mechanisms can shift with policy priorities.

And finally, there is the financial angle. Many teams assume European cloud alternatives will be cheaper than AWS, Azure, or OCI. That is one of the most common reasons the conversation about moving to an EU cloud starts, and one of the first expectations to break.

Where business cases fail

EU cloud narratives are usually built around benefits. They are real—and later, we will outline the main ones—but the constraints that come with them are often overlooked.

“EU clouds are cheaper”

European providers are frequently positioned as a lower-cost alternative to leading cloud providers. The argument sounds convincing, and we have seen how this works in practice.

A long-term client asked us to move the digital platform we were building from AWS to an EU-based cloud. Their investors had consistently framed EU providers as the more economical option. After several workshops focused on critical AWS services in use and operational requirements, we proceeded with the migration.

Technically, the move was successful. However, certain managed services were unavailable or less mature. Some capabilities that came out of the box in AWS had to be rebuilt or approximated through custom solutions. That added engineering effort, manual processes, and long-term maintenance cost.

Over time, the operating cost of the EU cloud exceeded the original AWS setup. Ultimately, the client decided to move the platform back to AWS.

The takeaway is not that EU clouds are more expensive, it’s that migration efforts, service gaps, and additional engineering often outweigh savings.

“We can re-host the platform without changing the architecture”

Many assume that moving to another cloud is just about changing region or provider and moving the workloads while the architecture stays the same and the system keeps running as before.

In reality, this assumption breaks quickly. EU cloud providers offer a different service catalog, different managed-service maturity, and different networking constraints. When a platform depends on hyperscaler-native capabilities, those differences require redesign.

“It’s just a technical migration”

Beyond infrastructure and architecture, the move to an EU provider changes how the platform is operated. Provisioning, monitoring, incident response, access management, backup and recovery, security governance require the team to take on new responsibility and tooling.

“Meeting sovereignty requirements requires leaving US hyperscalers”

AWS, Azure, and OCI now offer alternative operating models for regulated workloads, including sovereign cloud programs and regionally isolated environments. These models keep data, operations, and admin access in Europe.

What companies actually gain from EU clouds

EU clouds can be a strong option in the right context. With a European provider, companies usually gain:

• Fewer cross-border data transfers to control and explain by keeping storage and processing inside the EU/EEA.
• A provider primarily subject to EU jurisdiction, which can reduce dependence on non-EU laws and policy shifts.
• A simpler way to meet strict customer requirements than building complex controls around cross-border workflows.
• Reduced single-vendor dependency if you move a sensitive part of your workloads to an EU cloud.
• Potential cost savings in narrow cases, particularly when you run standard compute, storage, and networking without relying on hyperscalers’ advanced managed services.

The trade-offs that matter

If an EU cloud is already on the table, plan for a different operating reality and prepare your business for the following trade-offs:

• Service coverage gaps
  You may not get the same breadth or maturity you’re used to in AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, or OCI.
• Less provider support
  More work moves from the cloud provider to your team.
• Increased engineering and operations effort
  Keeping the platform stable takes more internal time and resources, even if infrastructure looks cheaper.
• Skills gap
  Teams trained on hyperscalers may need time to adapt while hiring can get harder as the provider ecosystem is less familiar to candidates.
• Security responsibility
  EU hosting can reduce some legal complexities, but your organization remains in charge of access control, encryption and keys, logging, incident response, and audit evidence. In an EU cloud, you may have fewer built-in tools that standardize and simplify security and compliance management.
• Exit obligations with your current provider
  Large accounts often require advance notice, coordination with the provider, and alignment on contract terms, and data handling during the transition. This adds time and organizational effort to the migration and should be factored in early.