Partner relationships are not a badge collection. They decide whether a licence can be corrected quickly, whether firmware is available to you, and whether a serious fault reaches an engineer at the vendor rather than an unanswered web form. This page maps the ecosystem by the role each platform plays, and separates the marks we hold from the capability we deliver.
These are the official marks supplied by AAG. Where a vendor appears in the map below without a mark, we deliver and support that platform without claiming a formal designation for it. Current designation status is point-in-time and is confirmed on request.
Grouped by the role a platform plays in a delivery rather than by how prominent the logo is. Every entry sets out the working relationship, the capability behind it, and whether a partner mark is held.
3 vendors
Where most new workloads land. Microsoft is our deepest bench and the platform we hold the Cloud Solution Provider relationship for. AWS and Google Cloud are supported where a workload, an existing engineering investment, or a residency requirement genuinely points that way.
Partner mark held by AAG.
The centre of our practice. We hold the Cloud Solution Provider relationship, so subscriptions, licensing advice, and first-line escalation sit with us.
What this covers
Partner mark held by AAG.
Used most often for data and analytics work, and for organisations with an established Workspace footprint.
What this covers
Partner mark held by AAG.
Where a workload is better served by AWS, we design and operate it properly rather than leaving it unsupported at the edge of the estate.
What this covers
3 vendors
Compute, storage, virtualisation, and end-user hardware for the workloads staying on-premises for now. Sized against measured demand, bought through authorised distribution, and handed over with as-built documentation rather than a delivery note.
Partner mark held by AAG.
Virtualisation for hybrid estates, including consolidation of ageing physical infrastructure onto supportable platforms.
What this covers
Delivery capability. No formal partner designation claimed.
Server, storage, and client platforms sized against measured workload and procured through authorised channels.
What this covers
Delivery capability. No formal partner designation claimed.
Workplace hardware and print estates, including standardised device builds for organisations refreshing at scale.
What this covers
1 vendor
Database and enterprise application platforms where licensing terms interact with architecture decisions in expensive ways. Placement, virtualisation, and sizing choices are worth getting right before anything is deployed.
Delivery capability. No formal partner designation claimed.
Database and enterprise application platforms, where licensing and placement decisions carry real financial consequences.
What this covers
1 vendor
Network and identity controls for estates that span offices, datacentres, and cloud. Policy hygiene matters more here than product selection, so rule review and integration with cloud identity carry as much weight as the appliance itself.
Partner mark held by AAG.
Network security and segmentation for organisations with on-premises and multi-site estates.
What this covers
1 vendor
The layer that decides whether an incident is an inconvenience or an existential problem. Immutability, offsite copies, and tested restores are engineering decisions rather than licence checkboxes.
Delivery capability. No formal partner designation claimed.
The backbone of our data protection work across on-premises, cloud, and Microsoft 365 workloads.
What this covers
We hold commercial relationships with the vendors on this page, so absolute neutrality is not a claim we can make honestly. What we can do is publish the criteria, apply them in the same order every time, and write down the reasoning so you can argue with it.
The first question is what the workload actually needs: latency, data gravity, licensing terms, the managed services it depends on, and how sensitive it is to a poor link. A platform that scores well on a capability matrix and badly against those constraints is the wrong answer, however comfortable it would be for us to supply.
Purchase price is the least interesting number in the comparison. We model licensing over the term, support and warranty renewals, power and space where relevant, the migration effort to get there, and the cost of the refresh at the far end. A cheaper acquisition that carries an expensive fifth year is not a saving.
Somebody has to run this after go-live, and that somebody is often a small internal team with competing priorities. We weigh how much operational surface a choice adds, whether the skills exist locally, and whether the monitoring and patching story is realistic. Elegance that needs a specialist you do not employ is a liability.
Every platform decision should have a visible way out. We look at data egress, proprietary formats, contractual lock-in, and how much re-engineering a change of direction would need in three years. Where a choice is genuinely hard to reverse, we say so in writing before it is made rather than after.
When those four criteria point in different directions, and they regularly do, we set out the trade-off rather than resolving it quietly in our own favour. You will see the option we did not recommend, the reason it lost, and what would have to change for that answer to become the right one. If the honest conclusion is that a workload should stay where it is, or move to a platform we would earn less from, that is what the document says.
This is the least glamorous section on the site and probably the most useful one. Grey-market supply is common across the region, it is genuinely cheaper on the day, and the bill arrives later.
A grey import is not usually counterfeit hardware in a convincing box, although that exists too. It is more often genuine equipment or genuine licence keys that have travelled outside the channel they were sold into: stock intended for a different region, licences bought under agreement terms that never permitted resale, or keys unbundled from an OEM system they were legally tied to. The product works. The entitlement attached to it does not follow you.
That distinction stays invisible for as long as nothing goes wrong. It becomes concrete the first time you need a warranty replacement, a firmware release to close a published vulnerability, or a support engineer to look at a fault you cannot reproduce. At that point the conversation stops being technical and becomes a question of entitlement, which is not a question you want to open during an outage.
Licence compliance follows the same pattern with a longer fuse. Under-licensing discovered at audit is settled at the prevailing list price, not the price you believed you had paid, and it is settled on the vendor’s timetable rather than your budget cycle. Several years of apparent saving can be absorbed in a single reconciliation, and the finance conversation that follows is difficult for exactly the wrong reasons.
We buy through authorised distribution and we document the entitlement, which occasionally means our quote is not the cheapest number in the room. Where that happens, ask the other supplier for the same evidence: entitlement on the quote, serials registered to you, warranty level and expiry stated, firmware path confirmed. If they can produce it, take their price with our blessing. If they cannot, you now know what the difference was paying for.
The ecosystem runs both ways. If you sell, build, or distribute technology into this region and need delivery capability behind it, we are straightforward to work with.
We work with vendors who need certified hands on the ground, resellers who hold a commercial position but not the engineering depth to deliver against it, and software companies whose product needs a properly designed platform underneath it before a customer will sign. What we ask for is clarity about who owns the client relationship, who is accountable for support, and where the boundary between us sits — written down before the first joint engagement rather than during the first joint incident.
The questions that come up once the logos stop being interesting and the commercial detail starts to matter.
If your question is not answered here, ask it directly. We would rather have an awkward conversation before an engagement than an expensive one during it.
An accredited entry means AAG holds the official partner mark for that vendor and we display the mark as supplied. A capability entry means we design, deliver, and support the platform without claiming a formal partner designation for it. Both describe real delivery work; only one of them carries a mark, and we would rather draw that line ourselves than let a logo grid imply something it should not.
In most cases yes. For cloud tenants we start with a configuration review, because inherited environments usually carry legacy settings that should be addressed before anything is layered on top. For hardware we carry out a condition and warranty check first, and we will say plainly if equipment is beyond supportable life or outside a warranty we can act on.
We do supply hardware and licences, but we will still ask what the equipment is for and how it will be backed up, patched, and eventually replaced. That question frequently changes the specification and occasionally changes the answer entirely. If you want a price with no conversation attached, a distributor will serve you faster than we will.
We raise the case, provide the diagnostic evidence, hold the relationship with the vendor, and stay accountable for driving it to a conclusion. You get updates in plain language rather than a case number and an instruction to wait. Where a fault sits with the vendor's own code or hardware, our job is to keep the case moving and to translate what comes back.
Because it is bought through authorised distribution and registered to you. We can show the entitlement on the quote, register the serial numbers in your name, and confirm the warranty term and firmware entitlement before the order is placed. If a price we quote is higher than one you have been offered elsewhere, ask the other supplier for the same evidence.
Yes. Plenty of organisations hold agreements they cannot or should not move, and delivery work does not depend on us holding the commercial relationship. We will map where your entitlement sits, confirm what support routes that leaves open, and be clear about anything a direct agreement prevents us from doing on your behalf.
Tell us which platforms you already run and where the friction sits — licensing, warranty, escalation, or all three. We will come back with a considered response rather than a brochure.