AWS has gotten much better and closed the gap some. But, your average system will probably see a 4x difference (2x price and 2x performance). There was a very

AWS has gotten much better and closed the gap some. But, your average system will probably see a 4x difference (2x price and 2x performance). There was a very long period of time where SSDs were commonly available from everyone but cloud vendors. For some workloads (like databases), that resulted in a massive difference. This is still true for bandwidth. You can look it up yourself. Off the top of my head, in the US, you can find a server with 100mbps dedicated port for < $300. But that AWS bandwidth is over 3K. So that's less than 1/10th AND you get a relatively [relative to what you can get on AWS] powerful server vs just the bandwidth. Back when the C4 instances were announced, I ran unix bench on them as well as a dedicated i7-4770. You can see the i7 was quite a bit faster, and, if I recall, was less than half the price https://gist.github.com/karlseguin/5a6a45ace2048545b6c3 https://gist.github.com/karlseguin/5a6a45ace2048545b6c3 vs https://gist.github.com/karlseguin/a659ef87b3a4a5d590e9 https://gist.github.com/karlseguin/a659ef87b3a4a5d590e9 I think database workload is still where the average app would see the biggest difference. A properly configured server with a battery backed raid adapter and proper dual network NICs will blow RDS out of the water for raw latency and cost and, most noticeable to me, consistent performance. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer companies seem to be offering servers with BBU and dual NICs. And those that do are charging more...so that's also helped close the gap. IBM really screwed up. They wanted to compete with AWS so tried to turn Softlayer into an AWS clone, rather than focus on what Softlayer did better and fix the issues (automation and ddos mitigation come to mind).