ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF CLOUD SERVICE PROVIDERS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31891/2219-9365-2025-83-14

Keywords:

cloud computing, cloud infrastructure, IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, digital transformation, IDC

Abstract

The article provides a systematic analysis of the cloud computing market with a focus on key cloud infrastructure service providers, in particular Amazon, Microsoft and Google. Three main models of providing cloud services are considered: infrastructure as a service (IaaS), platform as a service (PaaS) and software as a service (SaaS). The functional characteristics, applications and advantages of each model are analyzed. Particular attention is paid to multi-cloud strategies that allow organizations to optimize the load, improve the reliability of IT infrastructure and flexibly use the services of several providers at the same time. The statistics obtained from the current reports of the analytical company IDC, which demonstrate the rapid growth of global spending on cloud infrastructure: in the fourth quarter of 2024, expenses amounted to 67 billion US dollars, which is 99.3% more than in the corresponding period of the previous year. Total spending in this sector is projected to reach $271.5 billion in 2025. The main drivers of market growth are identified - digitalization of business, active introduction of artificial intelligence, transition to remote work and cloud modernization of traditional IT infrastructure. The article is of practical importance for specialists in the field of information technology, business leaders, analysts and anyone who makes decisions on the implementation of cloud solutions. The presented review contributes to a better understanding of the cloud services market and allows you to reasonably choose a provider and a cloud architecture model for specific tasks.

Published

2025-08-28

How to Cite

KYSIUK Д. (2025). ANALYTICAL REVIEW OF CLOUD SERVICE PROVIDERS. MEASURING AND COMPUTING DEVICES IN TECHNOLOGICAL PROCESSES, (3), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.31891/2219-9365-2025-83-14