Should we migrate to AWS or Azure?

For standard enterprise workloads both are capable, so the decision usually follows existing Microsoft licensing and identity, the skills already in your team, and any specific managed service requirement. Organisations already committed to Microsoft 365, Active Directory and SQL Server generally find Azure integrates with less effort.

Will moving to the cloud reduce our IT costs?

Not reliably for steady-state workloads moved without modification. Cloud economics reward elasticity, so applications with genuine demand peaks benefit. Assessment includes modelling data egress and cross-region transfer, which are the charges that most often turn an apparently favourable comparison around.

How do you decide which integration pattern to use?

By timeliness and volume. A scheduled file transfer is appropriate for data consumed the following morning; real-time messaging suits high-volume, low-latency requirements with genuine decoupling needs. Choosing a more complex pattern than the requirement justifies adds cost and failure modes without benefit.

AWS and Azure Cloud Consulting and Integration Services | OMAV Technology

Cloud & Infrastructure

OMAV Technology provides cloud consulting and migration on AWS and Azure alongside application integration between business systems. Migration approach is selected per workload from rehost, replatform, refactor, replace or retain, based on demand pattern, hardware position and operational burden rather than a uniform strategy.

Assessing whether migration is worthwhile

Cloud migration is worth doing when an application faces a hardware refresh, has genuinely variable demand, has a disaster recovery gap that cannot be closed on-premises, or consumes team time on infrastructure rather than application work.

It is rarely worth doing purely for cost reduction. A steady-state workload rehosted without modification frequently costs more to run than the on-premises equivalent once transfer charges and managed service premiums are included, and saying so at assessment stage is more useful than discovering it at the first invoice.

Migration approach by workload
Approach	When it applies	Payoff
Rehost	Hardware end of life, time pressure	Speed, not savings
Replatform	Database or runtime can move to managed	Reduced operational effort
Refactor	Genuine elasticity requirement	Running cost and scalability
Replace	A SaaS product covers the need	Removes maintenance entirely
Retain	Poor fit or no trigger	Avoids spending on a bad move

Platform selection

For most mid-sized organisations the choice between AWS and Azure follows existing Microsoft licensing, the skills already in the team, and specific service requirements rather than platform capability, which is comparable for standard enterprise workloads.

Headline compute pricing rarely decides it. Governance, right-sizing and shutting down unused resources move total cost considerably more than platform choice does.

Integration between systems

Integration work targets the points where a person carries data between systems: exporting a report and pasting it elsewhere, reading a value off one screen and typing it into another, using email as a queue between two applications.

Pattern selection follows timeliness and volume. Error handling and reconciliation are designed in, because the normal outcome for an interface without them is silent failure discovered weeks later by a business user.

Carry-point mapping to identify where data stops
Pattern selection by timeliness and volume, not technology preference
Explicit error handling with defined reprocessing
Daily reconciliation of counts and key totals
Alerting on job non-completion, not only on job failure