Really good answer in terms of how they "feel" to use. Just one note, since there's a design decision Google and AWS made differently that feels nice but makes

Really good answer in terms of how they "feel" to use. Just one note, since there's a design decision Google and AWS made differently that feels nice but makes availability more precarious: > "Google's VPC (i.e network) is global across all regions which is nice for data locality as you can use the same VPC and put subnets across regions." It's also not uncommon seeing your entire global footprint go down when there's a network plane issue. AWS — for the longest time — was fanatical about keeping services uncoupled across regions, leading to far fewer "global" outages. Sadly, many customers complained, wanting services to be cross region, instead of having to replicate environments across regions. Fifteen years in, AWS is accommodating, allowing you to build services that span a couple regions and go down if either region is down. If uptime is critical to you, in AWS leverage at least 3 AZs in each of at least 2 regions, and be sure you're using region-only services or a cross-region service that's really single region with a consistency scheme. You'll stay online through most regional issues. Also note that the three define "region" quite differently. The AWS definition generally includes a variety of availability and resilience constraints, such as at least 2 AZs with enough physical separation to survive local physical outages. Looking closely comparing across them, you'll find AWS's resilience story is more stringent, the other two are somewhat more oriented to putting a pin on the map and call things regions that may be more like single POPs (points of presence). All that said, it's becoming "less true" in both directions, as large customers complain when any two CSPs don't work similarly. The "voice of the customer" is asking for feature parity rather than exploiting the differentiation. From our point of view, they're still differentiated enough a firm should consider using each for what it's best at, say AWS for lego blocks, Azure for business integration, and Google for scale-out analytics feeding ML/AI. Again, each is trying to shore up what the others already have in their DNA, but it's harder to copy something when it hasn't been your in-house bread and butter or you didn't invent it.