Cloud Infrastructure Development built in code, and run by the people who wrote it.

An environment is priced against what it has to carry, so this one is scoped with you rather than published as a figure that would be wrong for almost anyone who read it. The number moves on four things: how many services the environment has to run, how many external systems it has to reach, how much of it has to stay up when a component does not, and whether we operate it afterwards or hand it over. You can pay for it three ways: time and materials, billed hourly and quoted per project; fixed price, outcome based and quoted per project; or team extension, billed monthly per team member. The architecture stage produces the design and its cost model before you commit to building anything, and stopping there is a legitimate outcome.

The schedule is set by the number of services, the integration surface and how much has to be highly available, not by the size of your current cloud bill. The shape is predictable: requirements first, then the target architecture and its cost model, then an environment you can run something real on, then the tuning pass once production traffic tells you what demand actually looks like. You get the timeline with the estimate after the architecture stage, because a number quoted before it would be a guess.

Yes, and that integration surface is usually where the schedule risk lives, so it gets mapped in the first stage rather than discovered in week six. Hybrid is normal rather than a compromise: one client we support runs five cloud servers, including two database servers with load-balancing and failover, alongside a Linux server on-premise behind a firewall, and that split is the design rather than a stage on the way to something tidier. Sensitive data can stay where it is while the workloads that need elasticity move onto something new.

Yes, and that is a different purchase from this one. Our fixed-scope audit reads the accounts you actually run, finds the over-provisioned instances and idle resources, and puts automated scheduling and right-sizing in place: immediate savings of 20% to 40% on infrastructure optimization. One New York B2B SaaS client reports on Clutch that we helped reduce their AWS costs by 30% or more, by streamlining how a decade-old platform used AWS and Heroku rather than re-platforming it.

We prioritize cloud-neutral tools like Kubernetes and Terraform, and design services as containers, so an environment can be reproduced on AWS, Azure or GCP with far less friction than a hand-configured one. Lock-in is a design decision that gets made early and quietly, which is why the stack question belongs in the architecture stage rather than in a renewal negotiation three years later.

We build to a zero trust model: encryption at rest and in transit, identity and access management, and guardrails that reject a configuration change nobody approved. Controls go in while the environment is being built rather than being retrofitted onto a running one. unicrew holds ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015, renewed through a multi-stage audit with Quay Audit UK, and ISTQB-certified QA sits inside every sprint, on every engagement. Our security practice is one dedicated security engineer plus a part-time senior security consultant, which is a real constraint on how much review one environment can absorb, so the review is sized with the design rather than added to it. We do not hold SOC 2 and do not claim it.

That is the half of this purchase people leave until last, and it is worth settling first, because an environment nobody owns drifts back into whatever it was going to be anyway. Three answers work. A dedicated team of ours keeps building and operating it. A managed team works inside your process and reports to you. Or your own engineers take it over, which is the cheapest answer when you have the bench, and the one that depends most on the environment being defined in code rather than in somebody's memory. Ongoing operation of the application on top of it is maintenance and support, which is its own arrangement.

Everyone bidding will describe the same capabilities, this page included, so the useful questions are the ones with a verifiable answer. Three of them, and ours are attached. First: at the end of it, is the environment a repository another team could reproduce from, or a console somebody configured by hand and remembers? Second: which of the cloud credentials on the page are individual certifications earned by named engineers, and which are vendor partner tiers bought by the firm? The two are earned completely differently and a logo wall rarely says which is which. Ours are AWS Certified Solutions Architects on the team, plus ISO 27001:2022 and ISO 9001:2015 audited by Quay Audit UK, and we do not hold SOC 2. Third: instead of the star rating, ask for the link to the interview behind it. Every client quoted in the reviews above opens their own Clutch review.

Three cases, and we would rather you found them now. Where a SOC 2 report is a hard requirement in your procurement process, we do not hold one and will not claim it, so we will fail that questionnaire. Where what you want is a single supplier on a round-the-clock hosting contract, that is not what we sell. unicrew is a nearshore engineering partner with engineers in Ukraine, Poland, Estonia and the UK, and a hosting provider will do that job cheaper and faster than a senior engineering team will. And where one small application runs fine on a managed platform under flat, predictable load, keep it there: a Terraform-defined environment and an orchestration layer would add operational surface that somebody then has to staff.