AWS vs Azure vs GCP Shared Responsibility Model: Key Security Differences Explained

Introduction

AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud all protect their underlying cloud platforms. None of them automatically protects every customer identity, application, configuration, or piece of data.

That is the central lesson behind the AWS vs Azure vs GCP shared responsibility model.

The three providers follow the same broad principle: the provider secures the infrastructure it operates, while the customer secures the resources, access, data, and configurations within its control.

However, each provider explains the boundary differently, and customer responsibilities change according to the service being used.

These differences matter in multi-cloud security. A control that belongs to the customer in an AWS virtual machine may be handled differently in an Azure PaaS service or a Google Cloud serverless platform.

This guide compares AWS vs Azure vs Google Cloud, explains the most important similarities and differences, and shows how organizations can prevent responsibility gaps across multiple cloud environments.

What Is the Shared Responsibility Model?

The shared responsibility model divides cloud security duties between a cloud service provider and its customer.

The provider generally protects:

• Physical data centers
• Physical hardware
• Core networking
• Virtualization
• Provider-managed service components
• Foundational platform technologies

Customers generally protect:

• User and workload identities
• Access permissions
• Customer data
• Application code
• Cloud configurations
• Customer-controlled network rules
• Security monitoring
• Backup and recovery choices
• Regulatory and business requirements

AWS describes this division as security of the cloud and security in the cloud.

Microsoft explains how responsibilities change across on-premises environments, Infrastructure as a service, platform as a service, and software as a service.

Google Cloud follows shared responsibility while also using the broader concept of shared fate.

Who Is Responsible for Cloud Security?

The provider and the customer are both responsible for cloud security, but they control different parts of the environment.

A provider may supply encryption, firewalls, logging, identity services, backup options, and compliance reports.

The customer must still decide:

• Which controls should be enabled
• Who receives access
• How permissions are limited
• What data enters the service
• How applications are configured
• Which alerts are investigated
• How incidents are handled

The exact responsibility boundary depends on the provider, service model, individual service, workload configuration, data involved, and applicable requirements.

Key Differences Between AWS, Azure, and GCP

AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud follow the same basic responsibility principle.

The most important differences are found in their terminology, service designs, governance tools, and the way each provider explains its relationship with customers.

AWS Shared Responsibility Model

AWS uses a direct distinction between:

• Security of the cloud: AWS responsibility
• Security in the cloud: Customer responsibility

AWS protects the infrastructure that supports AWS services, including physical facilities, hardware, networking, and foundational cloud technologies.

For Amazon EC2, customers generally manage:

• Guest operating systems
• Security patches
• Installed applications
• Data
• IAM permissions
• Security groups
• Workload logging
• Backup settings

With more abstracted services such as Amazon S3 or DynamoDB, AWS manages more of the platform. Customers still manage their data, access policies, encryption choices, and service configurations.

The AWS model makes the provider-customer boundary especially visible for IaaS security.

Azure Shared Responsibility Model

The Azure shared responsibility model emphasizes how responsibilities move from the customer to Microsoft across IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS.

Microsoft always manages:

• Physical data centers
• Physical hosts
• Core networking
• The hypervisor

Customers always remain responsible for:

• Customer data
• User accounts
• Endpoints
• Access management

Responsibilities for applications, operating systems, identity infrastructure, and network controls change according to the service model.

The Microsoft shared responsibility model is also closely connected to Microsoft Entra ID, Azure Policy, Microsoft Defender for Cloud, and the wider Azure governance ecosystem.

Google Cloud Shared Responsibility and Shared Fate

Google Cloud follows the traditional shared responsibility principle but adds the concept of shared fate.

Google secures the underlying platform and provider-managed components. Customers remain responsible for their access policies, data, applications, workloads, and customer-controlled configurations.

Shared fate expands the relationship by emphasizing:

• Secure cloud foundations
• Recommended architectures
• Provider guidance
• Integrated security tools
• Improved collaboration
• Stronger security outcomes

Shared fate does not remove customer accountability.

Customers still need to manage IAM permissions, configure services correctly, protect sensitive data, monitor activity, and meet compliance obligations.

What All Three Providers Have in Common

Despite differences in terminology, AWS, Azure, and GCP share the same major principles.

All three providers secure their:

• Physical facilities
• Hardware
• Core networking
• Virtualization technologies
• Provider-controlled platform components

Customers consistently retain responsibility for:

• Cloud access control
• Human and workload identities
• Cloud data security
• Application code
• Customer configurations
• Cloud security monitoring
• Recovery decisions
• Cloud security compliance

A provider may offer a firewall, but the customer defines many of the firewall rules.

A provider may supply an identity platform, but the customer decides which users receive administrator access.

A provider may offer cloud encryption, but the customer determines who can access protected information and whether additional key controls are required.

AWS vs Azure vs GCP Responsibility Comparison

This is a general comparison.

Individual services may create additional provider-managed, customer-managed, or shared responsibilities. Teams should check current service documentation before relying on a broad provider-level summary.

How IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS Change the Boundary

IaaS Security

In Infrastructure as a Service, customers manage more of the environment.

They normally control:

• Guest operating systems
• Patching
• Installed applications
• Host settings
• Network rules
• Customer data
• Identities
• Logging
• Backup configurations

Virtual machines in AWS, Azure, and GCP therefore create significant customer responsibility.

PaaS Security

With Platform as a Service, the provider manages more of the operating system, runtime, middleware, and underlying platform.

Customers continue to manage:

• Application code
• APIs
• Data
• IAM permissions
• Secrets
• Service configurations
• Application monitoring

PaaS security failures often result from insecure application logic, exposed credentials, weak authorization, or excessive permissions rather than weaknesses in the managed platform.

SaaS Shared Responsibility Model

In the SaaS shared responsibility model, the provider manages most of the application and infrastructure stack.

Customers still manage:

• User accounts
• Authentication
• Administrator permissions
• Tenant settings
• Data sharing
• Connected applications
• Endpoints
• Retention
• Compliance decisions

Infrastructure responsibility decreases, but identity, data, access, and business-use responsibilities remain.

Common Multi-Cloud Security Challenges

Using several cloud providers can make security ownership harder to track.

Common multi-cloud security challenges include:

• Different IAM structures
• Inconsistent logging
• Separate policy systems
• Duplicate administrative identities
• Different security terminology
• Unclear workload ownership
• Fragmented cloud security management
• Gaps between cloud and on-premises teams

Hybrid cloud security introduces similar challenges because teams must coordinate provider-managed infrastructure with private systems and customer-controlled networks.

Cloud misconfiguration becomes more likely when one provider’s assumptions are applied to another platform.

For example, IAM roles, firewall policies, logging configurations, and managed services can behave differently across AWS, Azure, and GCP.

A Practical Multi-Cloud Example

Imagine that a company uses:

• AWS for storage
• Azure for workforce identity
• Google Cloud for application hosting

The company needs to ensure that:

• Access is managed consistently
• Permissions are reviewed across platforms
• Sensitive data receives equivalent protection
• Logs are collected and investigated
• Workload owners understand their duties
• Compliance evidence covers every environment
• Incident procedures work across all three providers

If an AWS storage policy is too broad, an Azure administrator account is compromised, or a Google Cloud workload is publicly exposed, the weakness may affect the wider business environment.

The organization therefore needs one cloud security framework with provider-specific implementation guidance.

.

Cloud Security Best Practices Across All Three Providers

Understanding provider differences is useful, but organizations also need consistent operating practices across every environment.

Create a Responsibility Matrix

For each important workload, document:

• The provider and service
• What the provider manages
• What the customer manages
• Which controls are shared
• Who owns each customer responsibility
• Which evidence confirms that the control works

Include:

• Cloud workload security
• Cloud application security
• Cloud network security
• Cloud data protection
• Identity and access
• Monitoring
• Cloud incident response
• Cloud disaster recovery
• Compliance

Standardize Cloud Governance

A central cloud governance model should define minimum requirements for:

• Identity and cloud access management
• Cloud configuration management
• Cloud encryption
• Logging
• Vulnerability remediation
• Backup and recovery
• Incident handling
• Cloud regulatory compliance

Provider-specific procedures can then explain how those requirements are implemented in AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.

Assess and Monitor Continuously

A cloud security assessment should examine:

• Identities
• Permissions
• Public exposure
• Customer configurations
• Workloads
• Data protection
• Network paths
• Logging
• Vulnerabilities
• Recovery controls

Cloud security monitoring should detect unusual access, administrative changes, public resources, disabled controls, and unexpected data movement.

A cloud security audit should verify that controls operate effectively rather than simply confirm that security products have been purchased.

Connect Security to Business Risk

Cloud risk management should connect technical findings to business impact.

For organizations in the USA, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 can support cloud security governance through six functions:

• Govern
• Identify
• Protect
• Detect
• Respond
• Recover

A practical cloud security strategy should address:

• Material cloud security risks
• Control ownership
• Business priorities
• Regulatory obligations
• Incident readiness
• Recovery expectations
• Accepted exceptions

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Shared Responsibility Model the Same Across AWS, Azure, and GCP?

The basic principle is the same, but the terminology and exact division differ.

AWS uses security of the cloud and security in the cloud. Azure emphasizes shifting responsibilities across service models. Google Cloud adds shared fate to the traditional model.

Which Cloud Provider Gives Customers the Least Security Responsibility?

No provider removes customer responsibility for identities, access, data, and business use.

Highly managed PaaS and SaaS services reduce infrastructure duties, but customers still manage access, configurations, data protection, monitoring, and compliance.

Who Handles Cloud Incident Response?

The provider handles incidents affecting provider-controlled infrastructure.

Customers handle incidents involving their identities, applications, data, configurations, and workloads. Some incidents require coordinated action between both parties.

Does Provider Compliance Make the Customer Compliant?

No.

Provider certifications cover provider-controlled systems and processes. Customers must demonstrate that their own access controls, data practices, configurations, monitoring, and governance satisfy applicable requirements.

How Can Companies Manage Responsibilities Across Multiple Clouds?

Companies should create a central cloud security framework, define minimum controls, assign owners, maintain provider-specific responsibility matrices, and monitor every environment consistently.

Build Clear Security Ownership Across Every Cloud

The AWS vs Azure vs GCP shared responsibility model is based on one consistent principle:

Cloud providers secure the infrastructure they operate, while customers secure what they deploy, configure, access, and store.

AWS emphasizes security of and in the cloud.

Azure shows how responsibilities shift across service models.

Google Cloud extends the conversation through shared fate.

Organizations can reduce responsibility gaps by:

• Documenting ownership
• Standardizing cloud security controls
• Applying least privilege
• Monitoring continuously
• Testing incident response and recovery
• Reviewing responsibilities whenever services change

The Shared Responsibility Model Across AWS, Azure, and GCP course provides a structured comparison of provider and customer duties across the three major platforms.

Explore the course to understand the differences, strengthen cloud security governance, and manage multi-cloud responsibilities with greater confidence.