SRCCUTOVERDESTIndependent · No vendor bias · Updated Apr 2026
Scenario · 100-Server Worked Reference

Cloud migration cost for 100 servers, 2026

A fully worked mid-market reference scenario. 100 servers, 20 TB data, mixed strategy, 12-month programme. AWS, Azure, and GCP costs compared on identical assumptions. All line items shown, including the ones cloud pricing calculators omit, plus the 3-year TCO versus staying on-premise.

The 100-server cloud migration is the most quoted reference point in cloud migration cost modelling. It is the smallest scope that exercises the full migration discipline (wave planning, partner-led labour, parallel running, programme governance) and the largest scope that most mid-market organisations face. This page is a fully worked 100-server scenario for 2026, with all line items, all three major hyperscalers compared, and the 3-year TCO comparison versus staying on-premise.

The reference scenario

The scenario used throughout this page: 100 servers on-premise in a colocation facility, mixed Windows and Linux estate (60 Windows, 40 Linux), 20 TB total data across various databases and file shares, 12 production applications and 8 supporting applications, no mainframe component, no SAP component, no regulated workloads (no HIPAA, PCI-DSS, or FedRAMP), 12-month migration timeline, partner-led migration, mid-market SI partner blend.

The strategy mix: 60 percent rehost (lift-and-shift) to cloud-native VM instances, 25 percent replatform (databases to managed database services, web apps to managed PaaS), 10 percent retire (workloads identified as no longer needed during assessment), 5 percent refactor (one high-traffic application rebuilt as cloud-native microservices). Wave structure: 6 waves of approximately 15 servers each over the 12-month programme.

Worked cost build for each destination

Worked 100-server cost build, AWS destination, 12 months

Cost lineLow estimateTypical estimateHigh estimate
Assessment and discovery (Migration Evaluator + partner)$40,000$75,000$140,000
Wave planning and PMO (12 months)$180,000$280,000$420,000
Migration labour, 90 workloads, blended$580,000$1,140,000$2,100,000
AWS MGN tooling (mostly free, EBS staging)$8,000$15,000$25,000
AWS DMS for 5 databases$2,000$4,000$8,000
AWS Snowball Edge (2 devices, 14 days)$8,000$15,000$25,000
AWS Direct Connect (12 months, 200 Mbps)$18,000$32,000$60,000
Parallel running, 5 months blended (on-prem + AWS)$320,000$680,000$1,150,000
Cutover and downtime contingency (per wave)$50,000$120,000$320,000
AWS Enterprise Support (12 months)$110,000$170,000$220,000
Staff retraining (8 engineers)$22,000$42,000$75,000
Security rework (IAM, VPC, encryption, Security Hub)$45,000$110,000$260,000
Refactor work (1 application to microservices on EKS)$80,000$180,000$420,000
Source colocation decommission$10,000$25,000$50,000
Contingency at 15 percent$220,000$430,000$780,000
AWS MAP partner funding($280,000)($450,000)($800,000)
Net AWS estimate$1,413,000$2,868,000$5,253,000

Worked 100-server cost build, Azure destination, 12 months

Cost lineLow estimateTypical estimateHigh estimate
Assessment and discovery (Azure Migrate + partner)$35,000$65,000$120,000
Wave planning and PMO (12 months)$175,000$270,000$410,000
Migration labour, 90 workloads, blended$550,000$1,080,000$1,950,000
Azure Site Recovery for 100 servers$6,000$12,000$22,000
Azure DMS premium for 5 databases$4,500$9,000$18,000
Azure Data Box (2 devices, 14 days)$5,000$10,000$18,000
ExpressRoute (12 months, 200 Mbps Metered)$15,000$28,000$50,000
Parallel running, 5 months blended (Hybrid Benefit applied)$280,000$590,000$1,000,000
Cutover and downtime contingency (per wave)$50,000$115,000$300,000
Azure Premier Support (12 months)$100,000$155,000$210,000
Staff retraining (8 engineers)$22,000$40,000$72,000
Security rework (Entra ID, network, Defender)$40,000$100,000$240,000
Refactor work (1 application to Azure Container Apps)$75,000$170,000$400,000
Source colocation decommission$10,000$25,000$50,000
Contingency at 15 percent$200,000$385,000$700,000
FastTrack value (Microsoft-funded)($60,000)($90,000)($120,000)
AMMP partner funding($240,000)($380,000)($650,000)
Net Azure estimate$1,267,500$2,584,000$4,790,000

Worked 100-server cost build, GCP destination, 12 months

Cost lineLow estimateTypical estimateHigh estimate
Assessment and discovery (Migration Center + partner)$35,000$60,000$110,000
Wave planning and PMO (12 months)$170,000$260,000$400,000
Migration labour, 90 workloads, blended$540,000$1,060,000$1,920,000
Migrate to Virtual Machines (free)$0$0$0
GCP Database Migration Service for 5 databases$3,000$6,000$12,000
Transfer Appliance (1 device, 14 days)$3,000$6,000$10,000
Cloud Interconnect (12 months)$8,000$22,000$45,000
Parallel running, 5 months blended (SUD applied)$260,000$540,000$920,000
Cutover and downtime contingency (per wave)$45,000$110,000$290,000
Premium Support (12 months)$95,000$145,000$200,000
Staff retraining (8 engineers)$20,000$38,000$70,000
Security rework (IAM, VPC, CSCC)$38,000$95,000$225,000
Refactor work (1 application to Cloud Run)$70,000$160,000$380,000
Source colocation decommission$10,000$25,000$50,000
Contingency at 15 percent$192,000$370,000$680,000
RaMP / partner funding credit($200,000)($340,000)($580,000)
Net GCP estimate$1,289,000$2,557,000$4,732,000

3-year TCO comparison

The migration cost is one-time; the run-rate cost is forever. The 3-year TCO comparison includes 36 months of cloud run-rate plus the one-time migration cost. The comparison versus on-premise includes 36 months of equivalent on-premise cost.

3-year TCO comparison, 100-server mid-market estate

ScenarioMigration cost36-month run cost3-year TCOVersus on-prem baseline
Stay on-premise (no migration)$0$5,400,000$5,400,000Baseline
Migrate to AWS (typical)$2,868,000$4,200,000$7,068,000+$1,668,000
Migrate to Azure (typical, Hybrid Benefit)$2,584,000$3,800,000$6,384,000+$984,000
Migrate to GCP (typical, SUD)$2,557,000$3,650,000$6,207,000+$807,000
Migrate with aggressive refactor$3,500,000$3,200,000$6,700,000+$1,300,000
Migrate with retire 25%$2,200,000$3,150,000$5,350,000-$50,000

The 3-year TCO honesty check

On a 3-year horizon, migrating 100 servers to cloud frequently costs slightly more than staying on-premise. The cloud business case typically improves in years 4 and 5 as the migration cost amortises and as the cloud capacity flexibility produces ongoing right-sizing savings. The case is strongest when 20 to 25 percent of workloads can be retired during the migration, eliminating ongoing cost entirely.

What the cost actually buys

The migration cost is dominated by three line items: migration labour ($1.0M to $1.2M of the typical column), parallel running ($540K to $680K), and contingency ($370K to $430K). Together these three lines account for roughly 75 percent of the total cost. Tooling cost (MGN, ASR, DMS, Snowball, Direct Connect) accounts for roughly 3 percent of the total. The cost concentration suggests where discipline matters: efficient migration labour, compressed parallel running, and realistic contingency planning produce on-budget outcomes.

What goes wrong on 100-server migrations

The most common cost overruns on 100-server programmes, in order of frequency and magnitude:

  1. Parallel running stretches from 5 months to 8 or 10 months because of unexpected dependency complexity. Each extra month adds $80K to $150K of parallel infra cost.
  2. Oracle or SQL Server workloads turn out to be more complex than discovery indicated. Per-workload cost rises from $5K to $20K or higher.
  3. Refactor scope creep. The one refactored application pulls in scope from adjacent applications, doubling refactor cost.
  4. Security and compliance rework exceeds initial scope. Security architecture changes from the destination cloud propagate back to source-side application configuration.
  5. Network rework. The initial network design does not survive contact with actual workload traffic patterns; cross-VPC peering, NAT capacity, and bandwidth all need rework.
  6. End-user training and change management is underbudgeted. Workloads with significant end-user touch (CRM, ERP, custom internal tools) need more training than the initial plan accounts for.

How to reduce 100-server migration cost

  1. Retire aggressively. Most 100-server estates have 15 to 25 workloads that should be retired rather than migrated.
  2. Choose the destination deliberately. Azure for Microsoft-heavy estates with Hybrid Benefit; GCP for data-heavy estates with BigQuery upside; AWS for everything else.
  3. Apply for partner funding early. MAP, AMMP, or RaMP can offset 25 to 50 percent of partner labour.
  4. Compress the parallel-running window. Every shaved week saves roughly $20K to $35K.
  5. Use the cheapest cloud-native tooling. AWS MGN, Azure ASR, GCP Migrate to VMs are all materially cheaper than third-party alternatives.
  6. Be realistic about refactor scope. Limit refactor to one or two high-value workloads; replatform or rehost the rest.
  7. Plan source decommission alongside the migration. Aligning colocation contract exit with the final wave saves $60K to $200K of stranded colocation cost.
  8. Use a blended onshore-offshore SI team. Pure onshore teams cost 50 to 80 percent more for equivalent capability.

The 100-server migration is the most quoted reference in cloud migration cost modelling because it exercises the full discipline at a tractable scale. The typical cost band of $1.4M to $2.9M is reliable as a starting point; the variance comes from strategy mix, destination choice, and parallel-running discipline. The 3-year TCO comparison is rarely a cloud-wins-by-50-percent story; for most mid-market estates it is a small positive on the 3-year horizon and a larger positive on the 5-year horizon. The case is strongest when aggressive retirement removes 20 to 25 percent of workloads from the migration scope entirely.

Q&A

Frequently asked

Q. What does it cost to migrate 100 servers to cloud?

A. A typical mid-market 100-server cloud migration over 12 months costs $1.4M to $2.8M all-in including labour, parallel running, partner consulting, tooling, and contingency. The 3-year total cost of ownership (migration plus 36 months of cloud run-cost) typically lands at $4.5M to $8M depending on the workload pattern, destination cloud, and strategy mix.

Q. Is the cost different on AWS versus Azure versus GCP?

A. Yes, but the difference is smaller than the marketing might suggest. AWS migrations typically cost 5 to 10 percent more than Azure for Microsoft-heavy estates because Azure Hybrid Benefit reduces compute cost. AWS and GCP are typically within 5 percent of each other for general-purpose workloads. GCP tends to win on data-heavy workloads thanks to BigQuery economics; AWS tends to win on partner ecosystem breadth. For a 100-server mid-market migration the destination cost difference is typically $100K to $300K, meaningful but not dominant.

Q. How long does a 100-server migration take?

A. Most 100-server mid-market migrations run 9 to 15 months from kickoff to full source decommission, with 6 to 10 months of active cutover work concentrated in waves. Larger waves of 15 to 25 servers each over 4 to 6 week cycles is the typical pattern. Wave-based migrations of this size produce on-budget outcomes more reliably than single-cutover migrations.

Q. What does the strategy mix look like?

A. Most enterprise 100-server migrations use a mixed strategy: roughly 60 percent rehost (lift-and-shift), 25 percent replatform, 10 percent retire, 5 percent refactor. The mix optimises for cost: rehost is cheapest to execute, replatform produces meaningful run-rate reduction, retire eliminates ongoing cost entirely, refactor is reserved for the highest-run-rate workloads where the additional migration cost pays back.

Q. What is the 3-year TCO comparison versus staying on-premise?

A. For a typical 100-server mid-market estate, staying on-premise costs roughly $4.5M to $7M over 3 years (including hardware refresh, software licensing, data centre rent, operations staff). Migrating to cloud costs $4.5M to $8M over the same period including the one-time migration cost. The cloud case typically pays back versus on-premise within 18 to 36 months, with the saving accelerating in years 2 and 3 as the migration cost is amortised.

Q. What is the most common cost overrun on a 100-server migration?

A. Parallel running is the most common cost overrun, typically by 30 to 80 percent of the budgeted figure. Teams underestimate how long the parallel-running window lasts (typically 3 to 6 months, not the 2 months in the original plan) and underestimate the per-month cost. The second most common overrun is contingency on Oracle, SQL Server, or specialised hardware workloads that turn out to be more complex than initial discovery indicated.

Related

Read next

Updated 2 May 2026