Last updated: October 10, 2025
There are numerous “cloudy” terms out there now. Is cloud-native better than cloud-based? Am I in the “cloud” when I enable my application for the cloud? Is there even any difference between these terms?
“Cloud-native”, “cloud-based”, and “cloud-enabled” are three different approaches to leveraging cloud computing in the world of software development and deployment. In this post, we’ll take a closer look at these approaches, shedding light on their specifics and how they’re different.
Cloud-Native
Cloud-native is born in the cloud. Developers architect cloud-native applications from the ground up, utilizing cloud-based technologies to run them in a public cloud, such as AWS, Azure, or GCP. These cloud technologies enable accessibility and scalability, allowing developers to deliver new services more quickly and easily.
Cloud-native comprises continuous integration, orchestrators, and container engines. Ultimately, creating and deploying applications is the key focus.
Cloud-native is a new approach to architecting applications and infrastructure; it involves breaking services into smaller, more manageable pieces and reusing services wherever possible. When you’re deploying your cloud-native apps and infrastructure in someone else’s data center, you must always consider the possibility of failure. Having this mindset allows you to deploy new applications that are flexible and resilient.
Cloud-Enabled
Cloud-enabled usually refers to applications that were traditionally built and then migrated to the cloud. The original design of these applications followed a monolithic approach, relying on local resources and hardware. When migrating to the cloud, developers refactor the application to utilize virtual resources while maintaining the underlying architecture. The application cannot leverage shared services or resource pools, and as a result, may struggle to deliver the scalability and resiliency of other cloud applications.
Cloud-Based
Cloud-based technology bridges the gap between cloud-native and cloud-enabled approaches. Suppose you want to leverage some of the cloud’s capabilities—such as higher availability and scalability—but don’t want to redesign your application to use cloud services completely. In that case, this may be an approach to consider. For example, if you move your in-house web application to AWS or Azure servers, you now have a “cloud-based” application.
Once you move your application to a cloud provider, you’re no longer responsible for managing the resources for the application. There’s no need to maintain a server or worry about backups. You also pay for what you use. The most significant advantage of moving an application to the cloud is its ability to scale up quickly to meet surges in demand, thereby increasing the availability of your application.
Cloud-enabled can be a solid approach for legacy applications or as the first step towards cloud adoption.
The choice between these three approaches depends on factors such as:
- The application’s architecture
- Scalability requirements
- Development goals
- Your organization’s cloud strategy
Cloud-native development is becoming increasingly popular due to its ability to fully harness the benefits of cloud computing. However, cloud-enabled approaches can be more practical for legacy applications.
The Main Differences
Cloud-native applications and cloud-based applications differ in several aspects. These new technologies focus on the following key areas, but with some notable differences.
| Cloud-native application | Cloud-based application | |
| Design | Must be designed to handle various failure domains; therefore, it may utilize a microservice architecture. | Built on traditional servers hosted in an on-premises data center, so its design prioritized availability. |
| Ease of use | Microservice architecture supports resiliency and allows for flexibility and scalability when building; this also enables seamless upgrades of specific app areas without causing disruptions. | Tightly integrated applications may require upgrades for the entire stack, leading to downtime. |
| Implementation | Faster releases because there is no hardware or software to deploy. | Slower because of hardware provisioning or software setup. |
| Maintenance | Microservice architecture minimizes service disruptions. | Hardware migrations or specialized software configurations may cause service disruptions. |
| Pricing | Typically, less expensive, as you only pay for licenses, storage, and maintenance from the cloud provider. | May be more expensive because you own the entire stack and may need to acquire hardware, power, and cooling before deploying the application. |
| Security | Built into the application’s design and architecture from the ground up. In addition, security is a shared responsibility between the cloud provider and the application owner. | Might not be as tightly integrated into the application’s architecture, especially if it’s a legacy application. |
| Storage | Often uses cloud-native services, such as object storage, NoSQL databases, and distributed file systems. Scalable storage solutions are also readily available. | May rely on traditional storage solutions that have been migrated to the cloud. However, storage architecture might not be optimized for scalability and performance. |
| Testing | Often uses automated processes extensively. Containerization and orchestration make it easier to replicate and test various components of the application. | Can be more complex, especially for applications originally designed for on-premises environments. Consequently, migrating and testing legacy applications in the cloud might require more effort and resources. |
| Disaster recovery | Benefits from cloud-native solutions and redundancy features. As a result, it can easily leverage multi-region deployments and automated failover mechanisms. | Strategies may vary depending on how the application was migrated to the cloud. Integrating with cloud-based backup and recovery services may be necessary. |
| Performance | Designed for scalability and high performance, with components that can be horizontally scaled. Leveraging cloud-native services, such as auto-scaling, load balancing, and serverless computing, can optimize performance. | May depend on how well the application has been adapted to the cloud. Likely challenging to achieve the same level of scalability and performance optimization as that of cloud-native. |
Conclusion
Cloud-native applications are designed to leverage the full potential of cloud services, resulting in more advanced security, optimized storage, efficient testing, robust disaster recovery, and high performance. Cloud-based applications, on the other hand, may require more effort to achieve similar outcomes—especially if they were initially designed for on-premises environments. When deciding between these approaches, organizations should consider the specific needs and constraints of the application and their organization.
SolarWinds Papertrail is a cloud-native solution that helps you aggregate, organize, and manage your logs. With SolarWinds Papertrail, you can collect real-time data, search centralized logs to troubleshoot incidents, automate backups, and archive up to a year of historical data.
Many organizations can implement the solution within minutes, and it can support rapid growth. In today’s fast-paced environment, this has become a necessity.
Sign up for a free SolarWinds Papertrail trial today and see how easy log management can be!
Frustration-free log management. (It’s a thing.)
Aggregate, organize, and manage your logs with PapertrailNeed something more? Don’t forget to visit the SolarWinds hybrid cloud monitor