UK/EU CLOUD STRATEGY

The market is concentrated. Your decisions need context.

What the UK cloud investigation found, what it did not say about co-sell, and what alliance teams can review in their own operating workflow.

Read the CMA findings

READ THE FINDINGS. KEEP THE BOUNDARY.

CMA · 2025 FINAL DECISION

Cloud infrastructure competition concerns

Concentration, switching barriers and software licensing.

Infrastructure findings ≠ co-sell program rules

YOUR ALLIANCE TEAM

Review the operating model.

Customer cloud context · Opportunity ownership
Program requirements · Approved actions

The CMA's July 31, 2025 final decision found competition was not working well in public cloud infrastructure services. This guide separates that finding from our operating recommendations for co-sell teams. It is not a statement of current provider program rules or legal advice.

What the CMA investigation found

The final decision covers public cloud infrastructure services. It found concerns about market concentration, barriers to switching and multi-cloud use, and Microsoft's software licensing practices.

Customers spent £10.5 billion on cloud services in 2024, with spending growing nearly 30% annually since 2020.
AWS and Microsoft each held 30-40% of IaaS supply in 2024 in the report's UK+EEA market scope.
Less than 1% of customers switched provider each year. Multi-cloud was more prevalent than switching, but uncommon among small and medium-sized customers.
Egress fees and technical differences were barriers to switching and multi-cloud use.

The report recommended prioritising potential Strategic Market Status investigations of AWS and Microsoft. A recommendation in a 2025 report is not itself a designation.

Dated update: March 31, 2026. The CMA recorded egress and interoperability steps by AWS and Microsoft, and prioritised an investigation into Microsoft business software. Check the latest case record for current status; this is not a claim that cloud-specific SMS designation has occurred.

What this means for ISV co-sell strategy

Our operating takeaway: start with the customer's cloud context rather than assuming customers can simply move between providers. A team with opportunities across several clouds needs a way to preserve that context.

The CMA did not require every ISV to register every opportunity with all three cloud providers. Infrastructure competition and co-sell eligibility are different subjects.

The multi-cloud operating gap

AWS, Azure and GCP work can sit in one pipeline while each opportunity follows its own provider process. Teams should keep the customer, cloud, owner, missing information and next action clear.

One opportunity in the relevant cloud context.
Program requirements checked for that provider and account.
Team approval separated from provider decisions.
Cash claims, credits and invoices tracked as different paths.

Bring the work together. Keep the rules separate.

A connected operating view is a workflow choice, not a remedy for egress fees or infrastructure market concentration.

Explore Pipeline Intelligence →

An operating model to consider

This is a recommendation for alliance teams, not a claim about what every successful ISV already does.

Opportunity context

Keep cloud, partner and customer details together.

Action review

Explain missing information and review prepared work.

Follow-through

Track provider status and the owner of the next step.

Review migration status, not a past countdown

Check the current AWS migration and account-linking guidance for your account. Confirm the linked account, IAM access and the integration your opportunity workflow uses.

Do not assume a connected tool replaces AWS migration or guarantees no downtime. AWS says migration typically takes 2 to 6 hours and users cannot access Partner Central while it runs.

Read AWS migration guidance →

What alliance teams should review

Account access: who has the permissions for the supported workflow?
Opportunity data: is the customer and cloud context complete?
Approval roles: who reviews the prepared action?
Funding paths: are cash claims, credits and invoices kept separate?
Status ownership: who follows up after provider review?
Data handling: review the actual contract, permissions, location and retention for your needs.

Where Vela fits, and where it does not

Pipeline work

Bring AWS, Azure and GCP opportunity work into a connected operating view.

Guided next actions

Review missing context and prepare the work for team approval.

Funding follow-through

Keep the stages and owners of supported funding work clear.

Vela does not remove infrastructure egress fees, change provider licensing rules or decide cloud program eligibility.

Quick answers

Was the investigation about co-sell?No. It investigated public cloud infrastructure services. The operating recommendations here are our interpretation for alliance teams.

Does every deal belong in every cloud?No. Keep the opportunity in its relevant cloud context; a shared pipeline can contain separate AWS, Azure and GCP opportunities.

Does Vela solve cloud switching barriers?A connected co-sell workflow is not a solution to infrastructure egress fees or provider licensing restrictions.

Where should migration requirements be checked?Use current AWS migration guidance and your account state, not an expired marketing countdown.

How should data handling be reviewed?Check the actual security and contractual details for your organisation. This article is not a blanket GDPR assurance.

Sources: CMA investigation · 2025 final decision summary · March 2026 update · AWS migration

More from VelaCo-sell Pipeline Intelligence Proactive Program Analytics AWS Partner Wallet Data

Build the workflow around your opportunities.

Keep the cloud context, next action and approval clear for the team.

Explore Pipeline Intelligence →

© 2026 Vela Cloud Ltd. All rights reserved. | Security | [email protected]