# Cloud Consulting Intel — Complete Site Index for AI Systems > Evidence-led profiles of 44 cloud consulting firms across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. Paid placements are labeled and do not determine eligibility or editorial verdicts. Profiles record public partner, delivery, pricing, and buyer-fit signals. > Publisher: Cloud Consulting Intel | Founder: Peter Korpak | Contact: hello@cloudconsultingfirms.com --- ## Firm Profiles (alphabetical — not ranked) ### 2nd Watch (Ollion) - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/2nd-watch/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - 2nd Watch is best for enterprises evaluating an AWS lift-and-shift migration followed by optimization, financial-services or retail workloads, and managed cloud operations — now delivered under Ollion, which absorbed the 2nd Watch business in 2023. - 2nd Watch is the wrong fit for buyers who need a standalone vendor with a stable, independently verifiable team, because it is no longer a standalone brand: since 2023 the practice operates inside Ollion, so current team composition, SLAs, and pricing should be confirmed under Ollion. ### 66degrees - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/66degrees/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): GCP - 66degrees is best for data-driven retail, healthcare, financial-services, or media organizations with a $180K–$700K Google Cloud data-platform, BigQuery, machine-learning, migration, or application-modernization engagement. - 66degrees is the wrong fit for buyers that require meaningful AWS or Azure delivery, or for very large enterprises that need capacity beyond a 500+ person GCP specialist during a rapid growth phase. ### Accenture Cloud - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/accenture/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Accenture Cloud is best for Fortune 500 buyers planning a multi-year transformation across AWS, Azure, and GCP that requires global delivery capacity, regulated-industry experience, and a bench of 10,000+ cloud specialists. - Accenture Cloud is the wrong fit for a smaller, AWS-only modernization where its $250K–$1M+ pricing band and process-heavy delivery model would add more overhead than the scope warrants. ### Atmosera - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/atmosera/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): Azure - Atmosera is best for US mid-market organizations with a $100K–$400K Azure migration, hybrid-cloud, DevOps, or managed-services need that values responsive support from a 120+ person Azure specialist. - Atmosera is the wrong fit for AWS or GCP work, multinational delivery, or a very large enterprise transformation, because the firm is Azure-only, US-only, and has documented capacity constraints. ### Avanade - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/avanade/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): Azure - Avanade is best for large Microsoft-centric organizations planning a premium Azure, Dynamics 365, Power Platform, Microsoft Security, or application-modernization program that can use its 60,000+ Microsoft professionals and direct product relationships. - Avanade is the wrong fit for buyers seeking AWS, GCP, or vendor-neutral multi-cloud advice, because its delivery model and solution perspective are exclusively Microsoft-focused. ### Capgemini Cloud Services - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/capgemini/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Capgemini Cloud Services is best for enterprises that need application modernization, migration, DevOps, and managed services from a multi-cloud integrator with 6,000+ AWS-certified staff and flexible delivery models. - Capgemini Cloud Services is the wrong fit for a buyer that needs uniform delivery quality across regions and a documentation-heavy handoff to its internal team, because both regional consistency and knowledge transfer are documented concerns. ### Caylent - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/caylent/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS - Caylent is best for SaaS, FinTech, and HealthTech teams with a $200K+ AWS-only migration or modernization that needs senior engineering in EKS, serverless architecture, DevOps, or cloud security. - Caylent is the wrong fit for buyers that need Azure or GCP delivery, a multi-cloud strategy, or a lower-cost generalist team, because the firm works exclusively on AWS and charges premium rates for senior engineers. ### ClearScale - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/clearscale/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS - ClearScale is best for an SMB or mid-market company committed to AWS that needs a difficult migration, cloud-native modernization, or ML/data build from an engineering-led partner; its Acoustic case documents 6,300 servers migrated from 12 data centers in 10 months. - ClearScale is the wrong fit for organizations evaluating Azure or GCP, or for a very large program that cannot tolerate competition for senior staff, because the firm is AWS-exclusive and its roughly 100–175-person team has limited concurrent capacity. ### Cloudticity - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/cloudticity/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS - Cloudticity is best for healthcare and life-sciences organizations that need an AWS migration or managed environment with HIPAA and HITRUST controls built into operations; its MiHIN case reports an 80% reduction in manual compliance oversight. - Cloudticity is the wrong fit for buyers outside healthcare or for programs that need broad multi-cloud delivery, because its practice is healthcare-specialized, its listed platform is AWS, and its team of 120+ healthcare cloud specialists may lack capacity for the largest concurrent transformations. ### Coalfire - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/coalfire/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Coalfire is best for SaaS vendors pursuing FedRAMP, organizations combining frameworks such as PCI, HITRUST, ISO 27001, and SOC 2, and DoD contractors that need CMMC or IL4–IL6 assessment capability, delivered by a roughly 1,000-person firm supporting more than 100 frameworks. - Coalfire is the wrong fit for a buyer that expects one team to advise on and assess the same FedRAMP package: impartiality rules require those roles to be split, and its $50K–$500K 3PAO pricing can also be excessive for buyers seeking a boutique or automation-led assessment. ### Cognizant Cloud Services - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/cognizant/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Cognizant Cloud Services is best for large application-migration and modernization programs that can use a hybrid onshore-offshore model and the capacity of 5,000+ AWS professionals to deliver at scale. - Cognizant Cloud Services is the wrong fit for buyers whose priority is a consistent senior team working in-region, because its profile warns that quality varies across delivery centers and offshore communication can be difficult. ### Deloitte Cloud - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/deloitte/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Deloitte Cloud is best for regulated enterprises that need board-level cloud strategy, governance, and business-case work backed by 8,000+ cloud professionals across AWS, Azure, and GCP. - Deloitte Cloud is the wrong fit for a buyer that already has its strategy and primarily needs hands-on cloud-native engineering, because its profile flags a strategy-heavy model, variable implementation depth, and a $300K–$2M+ pricing band. ### DoiT International - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/doit/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): GCP, AWS - DoiT International is best for technology, media, gaming, and SaaS companies that need FinOps, cloud-cost optimization, migration, or managed cloud operations with data and machine-learning support, from a GCP- and AWS-focused MSP with more than 400 cloud engineers. - DoiT International is the wrong fit for Azure-led programs or traditional enterprises that do not want an MSP relationship: its platform coverage is limited to GCP and AWS, its culture is oriented toward technology and startups, and its listed engagement band starts at $150K plus managed services. ### DXC Technology - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/dxc-technology/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - DXC Technology is best for a large enterprise with a mainframe, SAP, or complex legacy estate that needs one integrator to migrate and operate workloads across AWS, Azure, GCP, or hybrid cloud; its insurance case moved more than 1 million annuity contracts from COBOL and Db2 systems to AWS. - DXC Technology is the wrong fit for an SMB, startup, or cloud-native buyer seeking a fast, transparent, specialist engagement, because its model is built around formal procurement and multi-year enterprise contracts while delivery quality can vary for non-strategic accounts. ### Effectual - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/effectual/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS - Effectual is best for a U.S. public-sector, nonprofit, or regulated organization moving VMware or legacy infrastructure into AWS or AWS GovCloud; one committed case documents 120 virtual machines and 30 TB moved to an AWS-native disaster-recovery environment in three weeks. - Effectual is the wrong fit for a multi-cloud program or a very large transformation that needs a global delivery bench, because it is AWS-only, has roughly 200–300 employees, and its profile flags unknown concurrent capacity and account-continuity risk. ### EPAM Systems - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/epam-systems/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - EPAM Systems is best for a large enterprise that needs software-engineering depth across cloud modernization and production AI on AWS, Azure, or GCP; its Louis Dreyfus engagement moved 1,500+ virtual machines into three regional Azure landing zones. - EPAM Systems is the wrong fit for a lean, price-led single-cloud project that would be better served by a focused boutique, or for a buyer unwilling to contractually pin down delivery geography and seniority, because its premium global model carries team-variation and location risk. ### GuidePoint Security - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/guidepoint-security/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - GuidePoint Security is best for U.S. federal, regulated mid-market, and enterprise buyers that need cloud-security engineering, FedRAMP or CMMC work, or implementation across CrowdStrike, Wiz, and Palo Alto stacks from a team whose profile says more than 60% of staff are technical practitioners. - GuidePoint Security is the wrong fit for a global buyer that needs follow-the-sun delivery or a proprietary 24x7 SOC under one provider, because its footprint is North America-focused and its MDR service is delivered through third parties. ### HCLTech - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/hcltech/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - HCLTech is best for a large enterprise that wants one long-term integrator for a complex AWS, Azure, and GCP transformation, SAP migration, or managed-cloud program, backed by a listed pool of 40,000+ certified cloud professionals. - HCLTech is the wrong fit for an SMB, a boutique cloud-native build, or a highly specialized single-platform workload where named expert access matters more than global scale, because its enterprise model uses opaque multi-year contracts and delivery quality varies by account and geography. ### IBM Consulting - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/ibm-consulting/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - IBM Consulting is best for a large enterprise modernizing a hybrid or multi-cloud estate where Red Hat OpenShift portability, SAP depth, and integration across AWS, Azure, GCP, and private infrastructure matter; its profile lists 19,000+ SAP-trained consultants. - IBM Consulting is the wrong fit for an SMB, a sub-$1M project, or a pure single-hyperscaler build that needs fast mobilization and focused platform depth, because its model carries enterprise contracting overhead, opaque premium pricing, and large-team quality variation. ### Infosys - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/infosys/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Infosys is best for a global enterprise coordinating a multi-country transformation across AWS, Azure, and GCP, especially when SAP, Salesforce, Oracle, or regulated-industry integration must run through one systems integrator with delivery coverage in 59 countries. - Infosys is the wrong fit for an SMB, a cloud-native company, or a narrow single-platform build that needs specialist depth and a stable small team, because its 320,000+ employee generalist model relies heavily on offshore delivery and opaque enterprise contracts. ### Kyndryl - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/kyndryl/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Kyndryl is best for large regulated enterprises moving complex legacy, mainframe, or hybrid estates into long-term managed operations across AWS, Azure, and GCP, backed by approximately 73,000 employees and unusual IBM Z depth. - Kyndryl is the wrong fit for a greenfield cloud-native product build or application-development-only engagement, because its operating model is infrastructure-led and optimized for large, negotiated managed-services programs rather than boutique engineering delivery. ### Mandiant - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/mandiant/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Mandiant is best for enterprises and critical-infrastructure operators that want a pre-negotiated 2-hour response SLA, deep breach experience, or OT/ICS-aware incident response, backed by roughly 1,400–2,000 consultants and analysts. - Mandiant is the wrong fit for SMBs, budget-constrained mid-market teams, or AWS- and Azure-heavy transformation buyers that require a platform-neutral roadmap: its retainers run $25K–$150K, it offers no breach warranty, and its transformation work increasingly centers Google SecOps. ### Mission Cloud - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/mission-cloud/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS - Mission Cloud is best for startup and mid-market media, gaming, or SaaS teams with a $100K+ AWS migration, managed-services, or FinOps engagement that needs an AWS-focused partner to extend the internal team. - Mission Cloud is the wrong fit for organizations that need Azure or GCP delivery or a massive legacy-enterprise transformation, because its practice is AWS-only and its profile notes less experience with that scale of migration than global integrators. ### Neudesic (an IBM Company) - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/neudesic/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): Azure - Neudesic — a Microsoft-focused consultancy with 2,500+ Azure and data/AI specialists across the US and India, part of IBM Consulting since 2022 — is best for enterprises building custom Azure applications, modernizing on the Microsoft stack (Power Platform, Dynamics 365, M365 Copilot), or delivering Azure data and AI programs that benefit from a repeat Microsoft Partner of the Year backed by IBM's global scale. - Neudesic is the wrong fit for buyers who need a multi-cloud partner spanning AWS or GCP, or a small independent boutique with boutique pricing: its practice is Microsoft/Azure-only, and since the IBM acquisition its team, SLAs, and pricing should be confirmed under IBM Consulting rather than treated as those of an independent firm. ### NTT DATA Cloud - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/ntt-data/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - NTT DATA Cloud is best for enterprises that need hybrid-cloud migration, complex network integration, or ongoing managed infrastructure across AWS, Azure, and GCP, particularly where delivery strength in Asia matters, backed by more than 4,000 cloud-certified staff. - NTT DATA Cloud is the wrong fit for a buyer seeking a small, highly agile team for cloud-native application development: its profile is infrastructure- and network-led, its approach is more traditional than a cloud-native boutique, and engagements are listed at $200K–$700K. ### Onix - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/onix/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): GCP - Onix is best for mid-market organizations adopting Google Workspace and Google Cloud together that value end-to-end Google expertise, training, and a high-touch support model from more than 180 Google specialists. - Onix is the wrong fit for AWS or Azure estates, very large enterprise programs, or complex cloud-native application builds: its GCP practice is secondary to Workspace, its profile lists limited multi-cloud depth, and its typical engagement band is $100K–$400K. ### Optiv - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/optiv/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Optiv is best for regulated enterprises consolidating cloud-security tooling, compliance, and managed security across AWS, Azure, and GCP with a pure-play integrator that has 600+ security practitioners. - Optiv is the wrong fit for a general cloud migration or application-modernization program where security is not the primary mandate, or for a buyer unwilling to name and vet the delivery consultants before signing the SOW. ### Perficient - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/perficient/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): Azure - Perficient is best for business-transformation programs that combine Azure applications, data and analytics, Dynamics, or Power Platform across retail, healthcare, financial services, and manufacturing, delivered by more than 700 Azure professionals. - Perficient is the wrong fit for a simple infrastructure migration or a buyer that needs consistently deep infrastructure specialization: its profile is business-focused, quality can vary across practices, account structures can be complex, and engagements are listed at $180K–$600K. ### phData - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/phdata/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - phData is best for enterprises with a $200K–$1M+ Snowflake migration, data-platform build, or managed DataOps/MLOps program that needs deep Snowflake, dbt, AWS, and Azure engineering rather than general cloud consulting. - phData is the wrong fit for buyers seeking broad infrastructure, networking, cybersecurity, or multi-cloud operations from one provider, because the firm's specialization is data engineering and managed data operations. ### Presidio - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/presidio/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Presidio is best for mid-market and enterprise buyers with a $100K–$500K cloud project who want AWS migration, security, MDR, procurement, and ongoing managed services under one integrator. - Presidio is the wrong fit for a Fortune 100 buyer seeking a pure-play security partner with deep threat-intelligence research, offensive-security depth, or bespoke detection engineering, because security is one horizontal practice within its broader systems-integration business. ### Pythian - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/pythian/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): GCP, AWS, Azure - Pythian is best for complex database migrations, data-platform architecture, and 24/7 managed data services across GCP, AWS, and Azure, delivered by more than 400 data specialists. - Pythian is the wrong fit for broad, non-data-centric cloud transformations or very large programs that need abundant generalist capacity: its specialization carries a $150K–$550K engagement band, less breadth outside data, and potential capacity constraints at the largest scale. ### Quantiphi - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/quantiphi/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): GCP, AWS, Azure - Quantiphi is best for healthcare, financial-services, public-sector, or media buyers building production AI and machine-learning systems on Google Cloud or AWS with an AI-first specialist of approximately 3,100 employees. - Quantiphi is the wrong fit for an Azure-first program or an engagement requiring a predominantly US-based onsite team, because Azure is a secondary practice and roughly 87% of its workforce is based in India. ### Quisitive - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/quisitive/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): Azure - Quisitive is best for mid-market healthcare and manufacturing organizations standardizing on Azure, Dynamics 365, Microsoft 365, or Power Platform with one Microsoft specialist holding 19 advanced specializations. - Quisitive is the wrong fit for AWS, GCP, or mixed-cloud programs, and its approximately 350-person scale also makes it a poor fit for very large concurrent global transformations. ### Rackspace Technology - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/rackspace/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Rackspace Technology is best for organizations with a $150K+ need to operate and support an existing AWS, Azure, or GCP estate through managed services, 24/7/365 coverage, and flexible access to engineering capacity. - Rackspace Technology is the wrong fit for a greenfield, cloud-native product build where application innovation matters more than infrastructure operations, because its hosting heritage and managed-run focus can overshadow cloud-native engineering. ### SADA - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/sada/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): GCP, AWS - SADA is best for enterprise technology, healthcare, media, or financial-services teams making Google Cloud the center of a data, analytics, machine-learning, or application-modernization program, backed by a listed bench of 800+ cloud engineers. - SADA is the wrong fit for a buyer seeking an AWS-first partner, a low-cost provider, or a very large legacy migration, because its profile identifies Google Cloud as the primary practice, premium pricing, limited capacity at the largest scale, and complex legacy migration as a weak fit. ### Schellman - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/schellman/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Schellman is best for SaaS, cloud, healthcare, fintech, and government organizations that need an independent assessor to coordinate SOC, ISO, PCI, HITRUST, FedRAMP, or CMMC work; the firm issues 2,000+ SOC reports annually. - Schellman is the wrong fit for buyers seeking one vendor to both assess and remediate the same controls, because its pure-play assessor model requires remediation to remain with a separate implementation partner. ### Searce - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/searce/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): GCP - Searce is best for data-intensive BigQuery, data-pipeline, machine-learning, and cloud-native projects that can benefit from an agile offshore delivery model, from an India-based, GCP-only consultancy with more than 300 GCP engineers. - Searce is the wrong fit for AWS or Azure programs, very large enterprise transformations, or buyers that cannot accommodate offshore time-zone and cultural differences: its profile is GCP-only and its listed engagement band is $100K–$400K. ### Slalom - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/slalom/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Slalom is best for enterprise buyers running a multi-year AWS, Azure, or GCP transformation that needs organizational change management and close collaboration from a local-market team within a 10,000+ employee consultancy. - Slalom is the wrong fit for price-sensitive buyers or programs that require identical delivery quality across locations, because engagements are typically $250K+ and team quality can vary by local office. ### SoftwareONE - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/softwareone/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): Azure, AWS - SoftwareONE is best for organizations that need Azure migration, license optimization, FinOps, or managed infrastructure across complex Microsoft estates, backed by more than 3,000 Azure specialists. - SoftwareONE is the wrong fit for buyers prioritizing application modernization or cutting-edge cloud-native product engineering: its strengths are licensing, cost management, and infrastructure, while its listed engagement band is $180K–$650K and delivery quality can vary by region. ### STX Next - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/stx-next/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - STX Next is best for mid-market and growth-stage teams modernizing Python applications with serverless architecture, DevOps, or dedicated engineering teams across AWS, Azure, and GCP, from a European software consultancy with more than 500 cloud engineers. - STX Next is the wrong fit for enterprises seeking a global-scale integrator or a long-term managed-services provider: its core model is project delivery, its managed-services offering is limited, and US teams must plan around a 6-hour East Coast time difference. ### TCS Cloud - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/tcs/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - TCS Cloud is best for large, long-term migration, managed-services, or SAP-on-AWS programs that benefit from industrialized delivery and offshore scale across AWS, Azure, and GCP, backed by more than 12,000 cloud specialists. - TCS Cloud is the wrong fit for buyers seeking a small, highly adaptive cloud-native team: its offshore-heavy, process-oriented model can be slow to change, account teams can feel impersonal, and its listed engagement band starts at $150K. ### Thoughtworks - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/thoughtworks/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Thoughtworks is best for engineering-led enterprises investing $500K–$5M+ to modernize a complex mainframe, monolith, platform, or data estate while transferring cloud-native engineering capability into the internal team. - Thoughtworks is the wrong fit for a commodity lift-and-shift migration or day-to-day managed cloud operations, because its value is architectural modernization and engineering craft rather than migration headcount, patching, ticketing, or infrastructure management. ### Wipro Cloud - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/wipro/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Wipro Cloud is best for large infrastructure migrations and ongoing managed-services programs that value offshore pricing, industry accelerators, and delivery across AWS, Azure, and GCP, backed by more than 8,000 AWS-certified staff. - Wipro Cloud is the wrong fit for buyers that need a consistent small team for fast cloud-native or modern DevOps delivery: its profile flags slower innovation, quality variation across locations, and communication risk, with engagements listed from $160K. ### Xebia - URL: https://cloudconsultingfirms.com/profile/xebia/ - Firm tier: Not publicly verified - Public pricing: Not publicly verified - Team size: Not publicly verified - Verified platforms: Not publicly verified - Verified workstreams: Not publicly verified - Engagement models: Not publicly verified - Company-size fit: Not publicly verified - Editorial profile topics (navigation only; not verified partner status): AWS, Azure, GCP - Xebia is best for mid-market and enterprise buyers that need one engineering partner to modernize applications, data, AI, and cloud platforms across AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud, especially when platform engineering, FinOps, managed operations, and team upskilling must be combined in the same program. - Xebia is the wrong fit for a buyer seeking a small commodity cloud task with public fixed pricing, or one unwilling to validate the proposed regional delivery team, because Xebia sells custom, globally staffed programs and does not publish a firmwide rate card or minimum engagement.