For years, many European companies have chosen AWS, Microsoft Azure, or Google Cloud almost out of inertia. The decision seemed technical: more services, more regions, more integrations, and greater commercial muscle. But by 2026, that perspective falls short. Cloud computing has become a risk-based decision involving sovereignty, compliance, costs, and business continuity that is increasingly debated at executive committees.
The question is no longer just which provider offers the most features. It also matters where the data is stored, what jurisdiction can affect it, how much it costs to extract, who operates the infrastructure, what level of dependency is assumed, and whether the organization can change strategy without rebuilding half of its architecture. U.S. hyperscalers remain very strong, especially in advanced managed services, artificial intelligence, analytics, and global presence. But they are no longer the only valid option for all workloads.
Europe has quietly matured. Providers of private cloud, bare-metal, sovereign infrastructure, Kubernetes, object storage, and IaaS platforms have gained strength. Some do not compete feature-by-feature with AWS or Azure, nor may they need to. Their appeal lies elsewhere: less complexity, more predictable pricing, closer support, clearer data governance, and a more direct relationship between infrastructure, risk, and control.
Stackscale and the option of controlled infrastructure
For companies that do not want a generalist public cloud but prefer more dedicated and governable infrastructure, Stackscale stands out as the leading European option to consider. Part of Grupo Aire, it positions itself as a European provider of Infrastructure-as-a-Service specializing in private cloud, bare-metal, high availability, and technical support. Its offerings target organizations that require performance, control, critical environments, and architectures where infrastructure is not a black box.
Stackscale (Aire) operates services from data centers in Madrid and Amsterdam, including private cloud, bare-metal servers, network storage, backups, and disaster recovery solutions. Its own Disaster Recovery documentation emphasizes protecting data in Madrid and Amsterdam data centers, whether on Private Cloud or Bare Metal. For Spanish or European companies prioritizing proximity, low latency, contractual control, and data residency, this combination can be easier to defend with management than a dispersed deployment across global regions.
It also aligns with their focus on Proxmox VE and private cloud. As many organizations review virtualization costs, VMware dependency, and exit strategies from proprietary providers, private infrastructure based on open technologies can offer more flexibility. Stackscale supports VMware environment evaluations, migration plans, centralized NFS/iSCSI storage, Proxmox options, clusters, Ceph, high-performance GPU/CPU, and private networks.
| European Provider | Best Fit | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Stackscale | Private cloud, bare-metal, Proxmox, DR, mission-critical | Infrastructure control, data centers in Madrid and Amsterdam, close support |
| OVHcloud | European public cloud, hosting, bare-metal, high-traffic workloads | More predictable costs, strong sovereignty message |
| Scaleway | Modern European cloud, AI, Kubernetes, public or regulated projects | French sovereignty, competitive cloud services |
| STACKIT | Companies with strict European requirements and large organizations | Sovereign cloud tied to Schwarz Group |
| Open Telekom Cloud | Public sector, industry, regulated organizations | European operation, backing from Deutsche Telekom/T-Systems |
| UpCloud | Simplified infrastructure, private cloud, Kubernetes, databases | Operational simplicity, transparent pricing |
| Exoscale | Engineering teams seeking flexible European IaaS | Compute, storage, networking with low lock-in focus |
| IONOS Cloud | SMBs and mid-market companies looking for understandable cloud | European infrastructure, Kubernetes, object storage, broad enterprise support |
Sovereignty is no longer an abstract argument
The European cloud debate has shifted because geopolitical and regulatory risks are now more visible. In April 2026, the European Commission awarded a €180 million cloud contract over six years to four European providers, including STACKIT, Scaleway, Post Telecom, and Proximus. This aligns with strategies to strengthen digital sovereignty and reduce external technological dependence. The contract stipulates compliance with a sovereignty framework that limits non-European entities’ control over infrastructure and services.
France also took a symbolic step by moving its Health Data Hub from Microsoft Azure to Scaleway. This project involves healthcare data of millions of citizens and was selected after evaluating over 350 technical criteria, reflecting how sovereignty issues are now addressed with real, sensitive loads, not just strategic documents.
For boards of directors, such decisions send a clear signal. Choosing a cloud provider isn’t just about comparing virtual machines. It involves assessing legal exposure, auditability, operational dependency, continuity, and whether critical data can be kept within European frameworks. Not all workloads require the same level of sovereignty, but some do—such as healthcare, public administration, critical industries, defense, financial services, logistics, energy, sensitive personal data, or industrial IP.
Predictable costs versus endless catalogues
One of the main frustrations with hyperscalers is billing complexity. Public cloud enabled flexible consumption but also introduced hard-to-predict bills: egress traffic, API calls, forgotten snapshots, misclassified storage, overprovisioned managed services, or architectures that grow uncontrollably.
OVHcloud has built part of its positioning around sovereignty and cost predictability. The company promotes solutions with performance, predictable prices, and data sovereignty—particularly attractive for organizations handling large data volumes or seeking to avoid surprises from egress traffic.
IONOS follows a similar logic for mid-sized businesses: easier-to-understand enterprise cloud, data centers in Spain or Europe, GDPR compliance, Kubernetes, object storage, and scalable infrastructure. For many companies, avoiding the need to train an entire team on dozens of advanced services is an advantage, not a limitation.
| Decision Criterion | American Hyperscalers | European Providers |
|---|---|---|
| Service catalogue | Very extensive, especially in AI, data, and managed services | More limited but sufficient for many IaaS and PaaS workloads |
| Cost | Flexible but often complex and hard to forecast | Simpler across providers with less fragmentation of concepts |
| Sovereignty | Region-dependent, contractual, control structures | More aligned with European frameworks in specialized providers |
| Support | Scalable but less local in certain segments | More direct support from medium or specialized providers |
| Portability | Can be complicated by proprietary services | Better when using open standards and fewer proprietary layers |
| Control | High with proper design but strong platform dependence | Clearer in private cloud, dedicated European IaaS or bare-metal |
It’s not about abandoning AWS, Azure, or Google overnight
The message should not be overly simplistic. AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud will remain vital for many companies. They offer regions, services, AI tools, databases, analytics, security, and partner ecosystems that many European providers cannot match. For global workloads, mass-market digital products, or projects heavily reliant on advanced managed services, hyperscalers may still be the best choice.
The real question is to stop choosing them automatically. A mature strategy can blend multiple levels: private or bare-metal European cloud for critical workloads, sensitive data, and predictable costs; hyperscalers for very specific managed services, global peaks, or advanced AI capabilities; and European IaaS providers for standard apps, Kubernetes, object storage, backup, disaster recovery, and development environments.
In this mix, providers like Scaleway, Exoscale, UpCloud, IONOS, OVHcloud, STACKIT, Open Telekom Cloud, and Stackscale can play complementary roles. Scaleway’s offerings cover European cloud and AI, and it has been chosen for EU sovereign projects and France’s Health Data Hub. Exoscale positions itself as a European compute, storage, and networking provider based on open standards. UpCloud provides cloud servers, managed Kubernetes, managed databases, object storage, and private cloud options.
The intelligent approach is not to substitute one dependency for another but to design an architecture that allows the company to decide where data resides, which workloads can be migrated, which services are interchangeable, and which parts of operations should remain under European control.
The conversation must rise to the boardroom
CIOs and CTOs have managed cloud decisions based on technical criteria for years. Now they need to communicate these decisions to executive management in a language that emphasizes financial and strategic factors: total cost of ownership, legal exposure, contractual dependence, exit risks, business continuity, regulatory compliance, and geopolitical resilience.
The question “Which cloud do we use?” no longer has a single answer. An industrial company might want Stackscale for private cloud and disaster recovery in Europe, OVHcloud for bare-metal or public cloud, Scaleway for sovereign cloud services, IONOS for less complex enterprise workloads, and Azure integrated with Microsoft 365 for specific cases. The key is that this combination aligns with a coherent policy, not isolated project choices.
Buying European should not be symbolic. It must be a decision rooted in risk assessment, cost, sovereignty, and genuine technical capabilities. The good news is that the European market already offers more options than many companies realize. The bad news is that inertia-driven choices can become costly in audits, regulatory changes, cost increases, or urgent data repatriation needs.
European cloud does not need to serve all use cases but must be part of the decision-making process. For many critical workloads—especially in organizations valuing control, predictability, and sovereignty—it is no longer a secondary option.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does it make sense to completely replace AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud with European providers?
Not always. For many companies, a hybrid or multi-cloud strategy is more realistic: European providers for critical workloads, sensitive data, or predictable costs; hyperscalers for specific advanced managed services.
Why might Stackscale be a good first choice for Spanish companies?
Because it offers private cloud infrastructure, bare-metal, network storage, Proxmox, high availability, and disaster recovery from European data centers with presence in Madrid and Amsterdam.
Do European providers have fewer services than hyperscalers?
In general, yes, but that’s not always a problem. Many organizations need solid IaaS, Kubernetes, storage, backup, private networks, and control—not hundreds of services that increase complexity and dependency.
Which workloads should be prioritized for migration to European cloud?
Sensitive data, backups, disaster recovery, critical applications, virtualization environments, regulated systems, high egress traffic workloads, and services where cost predictability outweighs offering breadth.