How we evaluate cloud consulting partners
Independent eligibility and fit assessments based on verifiable signals.
The problem we're solving
Choosing a cloud consulting partner is a high-stakes decision with poor information. Most directories sell rankings. Review sites are gamed. Partner tier logos tell you about vendor relationships, not delivery quality.
Cloud Consulting Intel exists because IT leaders deserve useful research rather than a leaderboard with a hidden score.
Our approach
We act as an independent buyer's agent. We do not assign numeric scores. Instead, we collect public evidence, separate confirmed facts from editorial judgment, and explain where a firm appears to fit — and where it should not be your first call. The goal is a useful fit assessment, not a leaderboard.
How we source our data
Our research process is multi-source and focused on what a buyer can verify. We prefer primary sources and do not fill evidence gaps with estimates:
- Official cloud-provider sources: Partner directories and provider-published partner pages are the preferred source for tier, competencies, and specializations when those records are public.
- Firm primary sources: We use service pages, team pages, pricing disclosures, and case studies for claims the firm is in the best position to document.
- Public secondary evidence: Reputable reporting and other dated public sources can confirm ownership changes, market events, or facts that primary sources do not address.
- Evidence capture: We retain source URLs, retrieval dates, and excerpts in a review pack before structured facts are applied to a profile.
How verdicts are published
Best-for and wrong-for verdicts are drafted from the evidence already collected for that firm. Peter Korpak then reviews the wording and the supporting facts before a verdict is published. An automated draft is not treated as approval, and an unreviewed verdict does not unlock a profile for indexing.
If the public evidence cannot support a useful claim, we withhold it. We do not invent rates, project results, review counts, partner status, or customer outcomes. Firm-supplied corrections can update factual fields, but they do not buy a favorable verdict.
Dates and corrections
Editorial evidence checked refers to the date the underlying factual evidence was checked. It is separate from a paid Verified membership and badge. Last reviewed refers to editorial review of the assessment. We revisit a profile when a firm changes ownership or brand, its partner status changes, or new evidence materially changes buyer fit. Corrections can be submitted for free and are checked against a source before publication.
The five evidence signals we assess
Each dimension is evaluated on the evidence available. Where evidence is thin, we say so rather than fill the gap with assumptions.
1. Partner Tier & Certifications
We start with what's verifiable: official partner tier (AWS Premier, Azure Expert MSP, GCP Premier, etc.) and active competency certifications. These signal meaningful investment in the vendor relationship and establish a baseline for technical capability.
What we look at:
- • Cloud provider partner tier (Premier, Advanced, Select, Expert MSP)
- • Active competency and specialization badges
- • Individual staff certifications (AWS SA Pro, Azure Expert, GCP Pro)
- • Consistency of certifications relative to firm size
2. Documented Outcomes
Past performance is the best predictor of future performance. We look for evidence that a firm can deliver — not promises, but published results with enough specificity to evaluate.
What we look at:
- • Case studies with concrete metrics (cost reduction %, timelines, scale)
- • Verifiable client references
- • Awards, recognitions, or cloud provider spotlights
- • Industry-specific delivery experience
3. Pricing Transparency
Partners who won't discuss pricing until deep in a sales process often have rates misaligned with their clients' budgets. We treat transparency as a signal: firms confident in their value tend to be upfront about what engagements cost.
What we look at:
- • Willingness to share typical project ranges
- • Published rate cards or engagement model pricing
- • Clarity on fixed-fee vs. T&M vs. retainer structures
- • Absence of pure "contact us for pricing" stonewalling
4. Specialization Depth
Generalists exist, but specialists typically outperform them on specific workloads. A firm focused on AWS healthcare migrations will usually do better than one that handles everything for everyone. We assess whether stated specializations are real or just marketing.
What we look at:
- • Coherent focus area vs. laundry list of services
- • Industry vertical expertise with proof
- • Platform depth relative to multi-platform spread
- • Team size appropriate to stated project scope
5. Fit Signals: Best-For & Wrong-For
No firm is right for every buyer. We document the specific scenarios where a firm excels and — just as important — where it shouldn't be your first call. Explicit wrong-for assessments are more useful than vague cautions.
What we look at:
- • Client profile fit (startup vs. enterprise vs. mid-market)
- • Project type fit (net-new build vs. migration vs. managed services)
- • Budget range alignment
- • Red flags: thin track record, recent ownership change, mismatched team size
What you see on each profile
Each firm profile documents what we found across the five dimensions above. Instead of a composite score, you get:
- Partner tier and platforms: Official designation from the cloud provider's partner program.
- Strengths: What this firm demonstrably does well, based on evidence.
- Considerations: Honest gaps or caveats a buyer should factor in — thin documentation, narrow track record, pricing opacity.
- Best for: The buyer profile and project type where this firm is a strong fit.
- Wrong for: Scenarios where this firm is probably the wrong choice, even if they'd take the work.
- Pricing range: Documented engagement models where available.
The absence of a numeric grade is intentional. A single number can't tell a healthcare CTO whether a firm has handled HIPAA workloads — but a best-for assessment can.
Sponsored listings and membership
Cloud Consulting Intel is free for buyers. Eligible firms can claim a profile and submit evidence-backed corrections for free. Paid options are Verified at $499/year, Featured Partner at $499/month, and one Sitewide Sponsor at $1,499/month.
Sponsored placements are labeled. Sitewide appears first, followed by equal-weight Featured Partners in alphabetical order. The directory then lists Verified firms and free firms, alphabetically within each group. A firm appears only on pages where its platform, service, and industry evidence qualifies it.
You cannot buy:
- Directory or page eligibility, an editorial Quick Pick, or a shortlist judgment
- An editorial verdict — paid firms cannot change their strengths, considerations, or best-for / wrong-for assessments
- Unsupported profile changes or a more favorable editorial assessment
- Guaranteed leads, rankings, sales, SEO benefit, or AI citations
A Verified badge means we confirmed work-domain authority, operating identity, primary evidence for claimed cloud credentials and major specializations, and core profile facts. The badge is dated and expires with the membership term. Payment starts the review; it does not guarantee approval.
The quote concierge is free for buyers and firms. Firms receive an anonymized project brief; the buyer's identity stays private until the buyer selects a firm for an introduction. Whether a firm participates, quotes, or declines never changes its ranking, profile, or editorial verdict.
Our value depends entirely on buyer trust. If our business model ever creates a conflict with honest research, we'll disclose it. We do not sell user data.