What actually slows a hybrid cloud project down: the fiber, or the paperwork? Ask anyone who has ordered a private link to a cloud provider, and the answer is rarely the cable. It is the ordering workflow, the routing model, and the small terminology gaps that trip up teams. AWS Direct Connect, Azure ExpressRoute, and Google Cloud Interconnect all promise a private path from a data center to the cloud. They deliver that promise through workflows that feel surprisingly different once a team starts building. (Connect bluetooth speaker tv direct transmitter arc setups)
This article compares the three services through the lens of workflow, not marketing specs. It covers how circuits get ordered, how routing objects are modeled, how automation behaves, and where teams commonly stumble. Feature parity shifts fast, so treat every capability claim as “as of writing” and check live documentation before committing to a design.
Why the Workflow Matters More Than the Bandwidth
Bandwidth is the easy part of the conversation. Every provider sells dedicated ports, and the headline speeds change with each hardware generation. What does not change as quickly is the operational rhythm: who requests the circuit, who accepts it, who configures the cross-connect, and who owns the routing once traffic flows.
That rhythm determines project timelines. A team that assumes a private link behaves like a VPN tunnel will plan a two-week task and discover a six-week one. A team that understands the object model in advance can automate most of the setup. The difference between a smooth deployment and a painful one usually comes down to how well the team mapped the provider’s workflow before signing anything. (Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF))
The Shared Foundation: Colocation, Cross-Connects, and BGP
All three services rest on the same physical reality. A private link starts at a colocation facility or carrier exchange where the cloud provider has a point of presence. The customer either owns equipment in that facility or buys a circuit from a partner who does. Then a physical cross-connect joins the two networks.
On top of that physical layer, all three services use BGP for dynamic routing. The Border Gateway Protocol, defined in the IETF’s specification for BGP version 4, exchanges routes between the customer’s routers and the provider’s edge. If a network engineer understands BGP route selection, they already understand the engine under all three products.
Where the services diverge is everything wrapped around that engine: the ordering portal, the naming of routing objects, the redundancy model, and the encryption options. Those wrappers are what this comparison focuses on.
AWS Direct Connect: Virtual Interfaces and Partner Hosting
AWS structures a private link around two layers. The connection is the physical port, either dedicated (ordered directly from AWS at a partner facility) or hosted (bought through an AWS Direct Connect partner who already holds capacity). The virtual interface, or VIF, is the logical BGP session layered on top. (Satellite direct cell service phones connect space)
AWS splits VIFs by purpose. A private VIF reaches a Virtual Private Cloud. A public VIF reaches AWS public services. A transit VIF connects to a transit gateway for multi-VPC routing. That split is the first workflow surprise for newcomers: one physical connection can carry several VIFs, and each needs its own VLAN and BGP configuration. Teams that plan for a single session often need to reopen the design when they add a second VPC.
AWS also supports link aggregation groups, which bundle multiple dedicated connections into one logical link, and hosted connections that let partners carve capacity from their own ports. The AWS Direct Connect User Guide section on hosted connections explains how partner-hosted capacity works, which is the fastest route for teams without a presence in an AWS facility.
Practical tip: order the hosted connection and the VIF in the same planning cycle. The partner provisions the port, but the customer still configures the BGP session, and the handoff between those two steps is where most delays happen.
Azure ExpressRoute: Circuits, Peering, and Global Reach
Azure models the same idea as an ExpressRoute circuit, provisioned either through a connectivity provider or as ExpressRoute Direct, where the customer connects straight into Microsoft’s edge routers. The circuit is the billing and provisioning unit, and peering configurations sit on top.
Azure’s peering types map to different destinations. Azure private peering reaches virtual networks. Microsoft peering reaches Microsoft 365 and other Microsoft services. That split resembles AWS’s private and public VIFs, but the naming and portal flow differ enough that engineers switching clouds need a mental reset. (Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS))
Two Azure features change workflow in ways worth planning around. ExpressRoute Global Reach connects on-premises sites through the Microsoft backbone, so traffic between two company data centers can ride the private path instead of the public internet. FastPath bypasses the ExpressRoute virtual network gateway for the data path, which improves throughput but shifts some design decisions. The Microsoft Learn overview of ExpressRoute circuits and peering walks through the peering types and how BGP sessions are established for each.
Common mistake: assuming Global Reach replaces a site-to-site VPN for every branch. It connects specific circuits, and the workflow for adding a site involves provisioning another circuit first.
Google Cloud Interconnect: Dedicated, Partner, and VLAN Attachments
Google splits its offering into Dedicated Interconnect, where the customer connects at a Google facility with 10 or 100 Gbps links, and Partner Interconnect, where a service provider handles the last mile. The logical object is the VLAN attachment, which pairs a VLAN ID with a BGP session to a Cloud Router.
The Cloud Router is the piece that surprises people. In Google’s model, the router is a regional resource that owns the BGP sessions, and attachments point at it. That differs from AWS’s per-VIF model and Azure’s per-circuit peering model. Teams automating Google deployments need to create the router first, then attach.
Google also documents HA VPN over Interconnect, which layers an encrypted IPsec tunnel on top of the private link. That option matters for regulated workloads that need encryption in transit even on a private circuit. The Google Cloud Interconnect overview lays out the dedicated and partner paths side by side.
Side-by-Side: How the Workflows Compare
| Workflow step | AWS Direct Connect | Azure ExpressRoute | Google Cloud Interconnect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical layer | Dedicated or hosted connection | Circuit via provider or ExpressRoute Direct | Dedicated or Partner Interconnect |
| Logical routing object | Virtual interface (private, public, transit) | Peering (Azure private, Microsoft) | VLAN attachment to a Cloud Router |
| Redundancy model | Multiple connections or link aggregation | Dual circuits, often in different peering locations | Two links in different metro areas |
| Encryption option | MACsec on dedicated links | Provider-managed or IPsec overlay | HA VPN over Interconnect |
| Site-to-site bridging | Transit gateway routing | Global Reach | Cloud Router route exchange |
The table hides one important difference: the ordering portal. Each provider has its own console flow, its own letter of authorization process for cross-connects, and its own partner directory. A team standardizing on one cloud will find the workflow natural within a month. A multi-cloud team needs a runbook per provider.
Automation and Infrastructure as Code
All three services expose APIs, and all three appear in Terraform and similar tools. The friction is in the object graph. AWS wants the connection created before the VIF. Azure wants the circuit before the peering. Google wants the router before the attachment. If a team writes a module assuming a flat resource list, the apply fails on dependency order.
A second automation trap is the partner handoff. Hosted connections, provider-provisioned circuits, and Partner Interconnect all involve a third party who accepts the request outside the cloud API. That step cannot be fully automated, and pipelines need a manual approval gate. Teams that skip the gate end up with half-built infrastructure waiting on a partner ticket.
A third trap is state drift. Cross-connects get moved, partner ports get reassigned, and BGP sessions flap during maintenance. Treat the private link as a monitored service with alerts on BGP state, not a one-time setup. This is the same discipline that makes any long-haul network link reliable, whether it is a cloud interconnect or a cloud VPN connecting hybrid networks as a backup path.
Where Teams Actually Get Stuck
The most common failure is a mismatch between the redundancy plan and the physical reality. A design that calls for two circuits in two buildings sounds simple until the team discovers the second building is not in a supported peering location. Checking facility coverage before finalizing the architecture saves weeks.
The second failure is encryption assumptions. MACsec protects the link layer on supported dedicated connections, and the IEEE 802.1AE standard for MACsec explains what that protection covers. It does not cover traffic beyond the link, so teams with end-to-end encryption requirements still need an overlay. Confusing link encryption with end-to-end encryption is a classic audit finding.
The third failure is treating the private link as a replacement for all other connectivity. Most mature designs keep a VPN as a backup path, which is why teams often run a cloud VPN setup alongside private links for real office and cloud topologies. The private link carries bulk traffic; the VPN covers failover and small sites.
A fourth failure is DNS and routing asymmetry. When some traffic leaves through the private link and some through the internet, return paths can differ, and stateful firewalls drop sessions. Plan route tables before the cutover, not after.
What Changes by 2027
Predicting specific speeds or features is a fool’s game, because all three providers revise their portfolios continuously. What is safe to say is that the workflow patterns will persist. Ordering will still involve a partner or a cross-connect. Routing will still be BGP-based. Object models will still differ between providers, because each cloud’s internal architecture shapes its networking primitives.
The practical takeaway for 2027 planning is to build abstraction into your runbooks. Document the ordering steps, the dependency order for automation, and the monitoring checks for each provider separately. That way, when a portal changes or a new encryption option appears, only one runbook needs updating.
Teams also benefit from cross-training. An engineer who has configured an AWS transit VIF can learn an Azure Microsoft peering session quickly, because both are BGP sessions with different labels. The concepts transfer even when the console does not. If your team also handles endpoint devices, the same principle applies to connecting a laptop to a projector over wired or wireless links: the underlying signal path is similar, but each vendor’s menu is its own puzzle. (Connect projector laptop wired wireless fixes that work)
Conclusion
Direct Connect, ExpressRoute, and Interconnect solve the same problem with three different workflows. AWS leans on virtual interfaces and partner-hosted connections. Azure leans on circuits, peering types, and Global Reach. Google leans on VLAN attachments tied to Cloud Routers. None is inherently better; each fits teams already invested in that cloud’s operating model.
The winning approach is to treat the private link as a workflow, not a cable. Map the ordering steps, respect the dependency order in automation, plan redundancy against real facility coverage, and monitor BGP state after go-live. Do that, and the fiber becomes the boring part of the project, which is exactly what you want.
FAQ
What is the main difference between Direct Connect, ExpressRoute, and Interconnect?
All three provide private connectivity from a customer network to a cloud provider. The difference is the object model and ordering workflow: AWS uses connections and virtual interfaces, Azure uses circuits and peering configurations, and Google uses VLAN attachments tied to Cloud Routers.
Do all three services require BGP?
Yes. Each service establishes BGP sessions between the customer’s routers and the provider edge. The BGP configuration differs in naming and session count, but the underlying protocol is the same across all three.
Can I encrypt traffic on a private cloud link?
It depends on the service and connection type. AWS supports MACsec on dedicated connections. Azure and Google offer provider-managed options and IPsec overlays, and Google documents HA VPN over Interconnect. Link-layer encryption does not replace end-to-end encryption for regulated data.
Which service is fastest to set up?
Partner-hosted options tend to be fastest because the partner already holds capacity at the facility. Dedicated connections require a cross-connect and can take longer. Actual timelines depend on facility availability and partner responsiveness, so confirm with the provider before committing to a date.
Do I still need a VPN if I have a private link?
Most teams keep one. A VPN provides a backup path if the private link fails and covers small sites that cannot justify a dedicated circuit. Design the failover routing before go-live so return paths stay symmetric.
How should I automate private link provisioning?
Use infrastructure as code, but respect dependency order: create the physical or hosted connection first, then the routing object. Keep a manual approval gate for partner handoffs, since those steps happen outside the cloud API. Monitor BGP session state continuously after deployment.
