Sovereign Cloud Compass
Reference architectures / landing zones

Reference architectures / landing zones

Why important?

Reference architectures accelerate secure standardization (networking, IAM, logging, guardrails). Without these patterns, implementation risk increases.

How measured?

Scale 0–5 + N/A:
  • 0 = No reference architectures/landing zones
  • 1 = Generic high-level guidance only
  • 2 = Simple references, little depth/automation
  • 3 = Usable landing zones/blueprints for core scope
  • 4 = Comprehensive references (security, networking, IAM) + IaC templates
  • 5 = Very comprehensive + validated (best practices) + broadly evidenced
  • N/A = no reliable evidence

Validation questions (RFP)

  • Are landing zones/reference architectures available? What level of automation/IaC coverage?

Scores comparison

Providers Score
AWS European Sovereign Cloud 5.0
Microsoft Sovereign Cloud 5.0
OVHcloud Public Cloud (inkl. SecNumCloud) 4.0
Oracle EU Sovereign Cloud 4.0
Delos Cloud 3.0
T Cloud Public 3.0
Exoscale 2.0
IONOS Cloud 2.0
STACKIT 2.0
Scaleway 2.0
SysEleven OpenStack Cloud 2.0
Cloud Temple Trusted Cloud 2.0 GitHub documentation with quickstart/tutorials. Terraform examples. No explicit landing zones or comprehensive reference architectures documented.
Infomaniak Public Cloud 2.0 Infomaniak Academy (certification program, 2026). Tutorials/FAQs. Partner network. No explicit landing zones or reference architectures.
UpCloud 2.0
noris Sovereign Cloud 2.0
pluscloud open 2.0
Hetzner Cloud 1.0