AWS gives you hundreds of services and just as many ways to overspend or over-engineer. We design and run AWS infrastructure sized to what your product actually needs — architecture that scales when it has to, and a bill that doesn't creep up unnoticed between reviews.
AWS rewards teams who know which services solve your problem and which ones just add a monthly line item. We've run both sides of that decision enough times to get it right the first time.
Architecture and implementation done by engineers who hold current AWS certifications, not generalists learning the console on your account.
Every architecture decision is checked against what it costs to run at your actual traffic, not the reference-architecture default.
We reach for managed services and serverless when they fit, and plain EC2 or containers when they don't — no Kubernetes because it's trendy.
Phased migration plans with rollback points, so moving off legacy hosting doesn't mean a weekend outage.
Terraform or CDK-defined infrastructure that's reviewable, versioned, and reproducible — not a snowflake built by hand in the console.
Documented architecture diagrams, IAM policies, and runbooks so your in-house team can operate the account without us in the room.
Scoped to your infrastructure's actual gaps — not a fixed bundle of every AWS service we can bill for.
VPC layout, service selection, and account structure planned for your traffic and compliance needs.
Event-driven backends and APIs built on Lambda, API Gateway, and managed services where they reduce operational load.
Moving workloads off legacy hosting or another cloud provider with a phased, rollback-safe plan.
Reviewing your existing bill for over-provisioned resources, idle infrastructure, and reserved-capacity opportunities.
Container orchestration for teams that need it — sized and configured for the workload, not the trend.
Monitoring, incident response, and iterative hardening after the initial build, on a retainer sized to your account's needs.
It usually comes down to your existing stack, team familiarity, and specific service needs rather than a universal winner. If you're already tied into one ecosystem (e.g., Microsoft tooling favors Azure, data/ML workloads sometimes favor GCP), that often settles it. We'll give you a direct recommendation after understanding your constraints, not a generic comparison.
In most audits, yes — over-provisioned instances, idle resources, and missed reserved-capacity or savings-plan discounts are common. We start with a cost audit and give you concrete, prioritized changes before touching architecture.
Yes. We use Lambda and managed services when they genuinely reduce operational overhead and cost — for spiky or event-driven workloads especially. For steady, high-throughput traffic, we'll tell you when containers or EC2 are the cheaper, simpler option instead.
Yes. Most clients move to a monitoring-and-maintenance retainer after the initial build or migration — incident response, patching, and incremental cost and security hardening — rather than a full-time team commitment.
Tell us what's running on AWS today — we'll review your architecture and costs and come back with concrete recommendations.