Compare options
Compare IBM Power Cloud and Modernization Options
Nine infrastructure and modernization paths for IBM i, AIX, and Linux on Power — filter by workload and business driver to narrow the field to what actually applies to your environment.
Independent comparisons — not sponsored by IBM or any hosting provider.
How do I compare IBM Power cloud options?
Start by separating two questions: whether the infrastructure needs to change (keep, refresh, host, or colocate IBM Power hardware) and whether the application needs to change (migrate as-is or modernize). Weigh capital versus operating expense, how much control and in-house skill you want to retain, and urgency drivers like hardware end-of-life or a data center exit. Then use the filters below to narrow these nine options to what actually fits your workload.
Actual suitability depends on your workload, software licensing terms, application support requirements, geography and data residency, target architecture, and each provider’s contract terms.
Filter by workload
Find the options that match your environment
Select one or more filters — operating system, workload type, or business driver — to narrow the nine options below. Clear all filters to see the full list again.
Showing 9 of 9 options
Key decision
On-premises IBM Power
Best fit: regulated or latency-sensitive workloads with strong in-house Power skills. Not ideal: teams exiting a data center or facing near-term capital constraints. Cost model: capital-intensive — hardware, facility, power, and cooling (directional; depends on configuration). Control: full control over hardware, firmware, and change windows. Migration complexity: none — this is the status quo, though refresh cycles still require planning. Recommended next step: compare refresh cost against hosted alternatives before your next hardware end-of-support date.
Key decision
IBM Power11 refresh
Best fit: organizations staying on-premises but needing current-generation Power hardware performance and IBM support coverage. Not ideal: organizations already planning a data center exit or cloud consolidation. Cost model: capital purchase or lease; directional cost depends on core count, memory, and storage configuration. Control: full control, consistent with existing on-premises operations. Migration complexity: low to moderate — primarily a hardware and firmware upgrade rather than an architecture change. Recommended next step: confirm your current hardware's end-of-support date and request refresh quotes alongside hosted alternatives.
Key decision
IBM Power Virtual Server
Best fit: teams wanting infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) consumption of IBM Power capacity without owning hardware. Not ideal: workloads with strict data-residency needs outside available regions, or highly customized firmware requirements. Cost model: operating expense; consumption- or subscription-based, directional and usage-dependent. Control: shared — the provider manages infrastructure while your team manages the operating system and applications. Migration complexity: moderate — typically a lift-and-shift of existing logical partitions with network and storage reconfiguration. Recommended next step: validate application and software licensing compatibility with the target region before committing.
Key decision
Power Virtual Server Private Cloud
Best fit: organizations needing dedicated, single-tenant infrastructure with a cloud-like operating model. Not ideal: smaller workloads where dedicated capacity isn't cost-justified. Cost model: operating expense with reserved-capacity commitments, typically a higher baseline than shared multi-tenant options. Control: greater isolation than shared options, though infrastructure remains provider-managed. Migration complexity: moderate to high, depending on network and security architecture requirements. Recommended next step: confirm minimum commitment terms and compare against shared multi-tenant pricing.
Key decision
Managed IBM Power hosting
Best fit: organizations wanting a provider to manage the full stack — infrastructure, operating system, and sometimes applications — under a service agreement. Not ideal: teams wanting to retain hands-on administration control. Cost model: operating expense; typically a bundled monthly service fee covering infrastructure and management. Control: lower day-to-day control, governed by provider service-level agreements (SLAs) and change processes. Migration complexity: moderate; the provider typically leads migration planning and cutover. Recommended next step: compare SLA terms, included management scope, and exit or portability clauses across providers.
Key decision
Colocation
Best fit: organizations exiting an owned data center but wanting to keep existing hardware and direct administration. Not ideal: organizations wanting to eliminate hardware ownership and lifecycle responsibility entirely. Cost model: operating expense for space, power, and cooling, plus continued capital ownership of hardware. Control: full administrative control retained; facility-level control shifts to the colocation provider. Migration complexity: low — primarily a physical relocation rather than an architecture change. Recommended next step: confirm facility certifications, remote-hands terms, and network connectivity options.
Key decision
Hosted disaster recovery
Best fit: organizations with adequate production infrastructure but limited or untested recovery capability. Not ideal: organizations whose production platform itself needs replacement — disaster recovery alone won't address that gap. Cost model: operating expense, typically priced by replicated capacity and recovery objectives. Control: the provider manages recovery infrastructure while your team defines recovery objectives and runbooks. Migration complexity: low to moderate — replication setup and periodic failover testing. Recommended next step: define required recovery time and recovery point objectives before comparing providers.
Key decision
Application replatforming
Best fit: organizations wanting to move off Power architecture while preserving most existing application logic. Not ideal: applications tightly coupled to Power-specific features without a clear replatforming path. Cost model: project-based investment in migration tooling, testing, and temporary parallel-running costs. Control: full control over the resulting environment; approach and tooling are typically vendor-dependent. Migration complexity: high — requires compatibility testing, data conversion, and cutover planning. Recommended next step: inventory application dependencies and licensing terms before selecting a target platform.
Key decision
Full application modernization
Best fit: organizations wanting to restructure applications for cloud-native operation, modern interfaces, or reduced technical debt. Not ideal: organizations under time pressure — such as imminent hardware end-of-life — without room for a multi-phase project. Cost model: typically the highest upfront investment among these options; ongoing cost depends on the target architecture. Control: full control over the resulting architecture and roadmap. Migration complexity: highest — phased rewrites, integration testing, and change management. Recommended next step: start with an application-by-application assessment to sequence modernization phases.
Side-by-side view
All nine options compared
A directional summary across cost, control, and risk. Use it alongside the filtered cards above, not in place of an assessment of your specific environment.
| Option | Best for | Capital expense | Operating model | Migration effort | Control | Scalability | Typical risks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| On-premises IBM Power | Regulated, latency-sensitive workloads | High (hardware, facility) | Self-managed | None (status quo) | Full | Limited by owned capacity | Hardware end-of-life, capacity ceilings |
| IBM Power11 refresh | Staying on-premises with current-gen hardware | High (one-time capital) | Self-managed | Low | Full | Limited by owned capacity | Repeats the refresh cycle again later |
| IBM Power Virtual Server | IaaS-style Power consumption | Low | Provider infrastructure, customer-managed OS | Moderate | Shared | On-demand within region capacity | Region and licensing fit, network redesign |
| Power Virtual Server Private Cloud | Dedicated single-tenant capacity | Low to moderate (commitments) | Provider infrastructure, dedicated tenancy | Moderate to high | Elevated (dedicated) | Scales within reserved capacity | Commitment terms, cost at low utilization |
| Managed IBM Power hosting | Full-stack outsourced management | Low | Provider-managed | Moderate | Lower (SLA-governed) | Provider-dependent | SLA gaps, portability at contract end |
| Colocation | Data center exit, keeping owned hardware | High (hardware retained) | Self-managed, hosted facility | Low | Full (administrative) | Limited by owned capacity | Still owns the hardware lifecycle |
| Hosted disaster recovery | Adding recovery to existing production | Low | Provider-managed recovery site | Low to moderate | Shared | Scales with replicated capacity | Untested failover, recovery-objective gaps |
| Application replatforming | Leaving Power architecture, keeping logic | Moderate (project-based) | Depends on target platform | High | Full on new platform | Depends on target platform | Compatibility gaps, data conversion errors |
| Full application modernization | Cloud-native operation, reduced technical debt | High (project-based) | Depends on target architecture | Highest | Full on new platform | Typically highest (cloud-native) | Scope creep, extended timelines |
Not Sure Which Option Fits?
An independent assessment maps your current IBM i, AIX, or Linux on Power environment against these nine options and recommends a phased path forward.