The 5 Paths to Enterprise AI (And Why Most Lead to Trouble)

Every AI team eventually hits the same familiar wall: their prototype works great, but production is a nightmare. This is the inevitable disconnect that arises when managing data pipelines, model deployments, vector search, and agent frameworks with tools that weren't designed to work together.

Add enterprise demands for security and cost control, and the risks get very real.

Case in point: Zillow’s i‑Buying arm ran into disaster when its home-pricing algorithm, trained on bullish trends, failed to adapt to a cooling market and began systematically overpaying for thousands of homes. The result? A $500 million write-off and a quarter of the company was laid off.

Or, take the Fortune-500 pharmaceutical company that scrapped its 500-seat Microsoft 365 Copilot rollout after just six months when the $30-per-user surcharge topped $180,000 a year and delivered “middle-school-quality” results. 

These failures aren’t outliers—they’re symptoms of an industry-wide readiness gap. According to Cisco’s 2024 AI Readiness Index, only 13% of companies feel fully prepared to run AI in production.

To overcome the AI infrastructure challenge, businesses can take one of five distinct paths, each with its own trade-offs between control, complexity, and capability. Companies that choose poorly often find themselves either drowning in technical debt from custom-built solutions or locked into platforms that lag years behind the state of the art. The stakes are particularly high given that AI platforms typically require substantial engineering headcount just to maintain and integrate—resources that could otherwise be devoted to building competitive AI applications.

Understanding these five approaches and their real-world implications can help technical leaders make informed decisions about their AI infrastructure strategy.

The 5 approaches to enterprise AI

Option 1:  Build it yourself

Maximum control, maximum complexity

Building custom AI infrastructure offers complete control and flexibility. Organizations can optimize every component for their specific needs. But in practice, it's often far more challenging and demanding than expected.

The scope extends well beyond model training. Teams must build data governance, experiment tracking, model serving, vector databases, monitoring, and agent frameworks. Companies typically need hundreds of engineers, translating to millions in annual costs with 18-24 month development cycles.

The maintenance burden grows exponentially as teams constantly evaluate and integrate new open-source innovations across dozens of interconnected systems. This creates a cycle where engineering resources are consumed by platform maintenance rather than building competitive AI applications.

A build-it-yourself approach only makes sense for technology giants with unlimited resources and highly specialized requirements. For most enterprises, the costs and complexity far outweigh the benefits.

Option 2:  Cloud provider platforms

Convenient, but years behind

AWS SageMaker, Google Vertex AI, and Azure ML offer comprehensive managed platforms deployable with a credit card. While appealing for their breadth of features, they have significant limitations.

Cloud tools lag two to three years behind current capabilities. This is problematic when breakthrough innovations can shift best practices within months. Despite appearing unified, these platforms suffer from poor integration. Teams still perform substantial custom work connecting data pipelines, training workflows, and deployment systems.

Data egress costs create barriers to experimentation, and platforms provide limited support for modern agentic workflows becoming central to competitive AI applications. Companies building sophisticated agent architectures often hit platform constraints.

Cloud provider platforms work best for straightforward ML use cases with tolerance for being years behind the technological frontier. Companies seeking cutting-edge capabilities should consider the long-term flexibility limitations.

OPINION: Why Cake beats AWS SageMaker for Enterprise AI

Option 3:  Extending data platform into AI

Familiar tools, unfamiliar tradeoffs

Databricks and Snowflake have expanded into AI/ML, using their data foundations and existing enterprise relationships. Their strength lies in mature data handling. Companies with Spark investments find natural synergies, and unified data/ML approaches help simplify architectures.

However, their AI capabilities feel like extensions rather than native AI-first designs. This becomes apparent in vector search, model serving, and agentic workflows, where specialized platforms provide more sophisticated capabilities. Teams still face substantial integration work for AIOps tools and monitoring.

Cost becomes prohibitive at scale for compute-intensive AI workloads, and modular flexibility is limited; organizations get constrained by platform boundaries when adopting new tools.

Data platform extensions work well for existing ecosystem investments and straightforward use cases, but companies building sophisticated AI applications should question whether they support long-term ambitions.

Option 4:  Stitching together point solution combinations

Cutting edge, but costly to glue

This approach combines best-of-breed SaaS tools, including specialized vector databases like Pinecone, model serving platforms like Replicate, evaluation tools like LangSmith, and monitoring solutions like Weights & Biases. Teams get cutting-edge capabilities in each area while avoiding vendor lock-in.

Point solutions often lead their categories in functionality and performance through singular focus. However, integration complexity grows exponentially with each vendor. What appears straightforward requires substantial custom development for authentication, data translation, error handling, and monitoring across disparate systems.

Security becomes challenging as data flows through multiple external systems with different compliance models. The engineering time for integration and maintenance often exceeds tool costs, while operational complexity compounds as teams manage multiple vendor relationships and upgrade cycles.

Point solution combinations work best for organizations with strong integration capabilities and tolerance for operational complexity, but teams should evaluate whether technical advantages outweigh substantial integration costs.

BLOG: Cake's security commitment: SOC 2 Type 2 with HIPAA/HITECH certification

Option 5:  Purpose-built AI development platforms

Flexible, future-proof, and secure

Purpose-built AI development platforms like Cake start with AI-first design principles rather than extending existing platforms. They deploy within customer VPCs, ensuring sensitive data never leaves the organization's security perimeter, eliminating security and compliance risks for regulated industries.

Modular architecture provides unprecedented flexibility 

Purpose-built AI platforms offer 100% modular components that can be replaced as requirements evolve. Teams can swap vector databases, model serving frameworks, or agent architectures without rebuilding infrastructure.

The economics are compelling: the platform approach eliminates the $500,000 to $1 million in annual engineering headcount typically required to build and maintain AI infrastructure. Teams focus on building revenue-generating applications instead of integration work.

Staying current with innovations becomes a competitive advantage

Purpose-built AI platforms rapidly integrate cutting-edge open source tools, incorporating new capabilities within weeks rather than the years required by cloud providers. They provide native support for complex agent architectures that traditional platforms struggle to implement.

This approach works best for organizations building cutting-edge AI applications while maintaining security and data control. This is particularly valuable for companies viewing AI as a core competitive differentiator.

Choosing the right approach

The decision between these five approaches ultimately depends on four critical factors that will determine both your immediate AI capabilities and long-term competitive positioning.

Security and data control requirements 

Security and data control requirements should be the primary consideration for most organizations. Businesses in regulated industries or those handling sensitive intellectual property need solutions that keep data within their security perimeter. This immediately eliminates most SaaS point solutions and raises serious questions about cloud provider platforms that may not provide sufficient isolation guarantees. 

The architectural choice here isn't just about compliance; it's about maintaining control over your most valuable asset: your data.

Technology flexibility and innovation speed 

Companies that view AI as a core competitive differentiator cannot afford to lag years behind current capabilities while waiting for cloud providers to incorporate new innovations. The pace of AI advancement means that organizations locked into inflexible platforms will quickly fall behind competitors who can rapidly adopt breakthrough techniques in agent architectures, model optimization, and specialized AI workflows. 

This isn't just about having the latest tools; it's about the ability to adapt your AI capabilities as your business requirements change.

Companies that view AI as a core competitive differentiator cannot afford to lag years behind current capabilities while waiting for cloud providers to incorporate new innovations.

Engineering resource allocation 

Engineering resource allocation determines which approaches are actually feasible for your organization. Most enterprises cannot dedicate 300+ engineers to building custom AI infrastructure, making the build-it-yourself approach unrealistic despite its theoretical advantages. Similarly, organizations without strong integration teams will struggle with point solution combinations that require substantial custom development to achieve production reliability. 

The key question is whether your engineering talent should focus on building AI applications that differentiate your business or maintaining infrastructure that enables those applications.

Total cost of ownership 

Total cost of ownership extends far beyond obvious licensing fees to include engineering headcount, integration complexity, opportunity costs, and the hidden expenses of vendor management. Purpose-built AI platforms typically deliver $500,000 to $1 million in annual savings by eliminating the engineering overhead required to build and maintain AI infrastructure. More critically, they free up engineering resources to focus on revenue-generating AI applications rather than infrastructure maintenance.

The strategic implications of this decision extend years into the future. Organizations that choose platforms optimized for traditional ML workflows may find themselves unable to adopt agentic AI patterns that become competitive necessities. Companies that prioritize short-term deployment speed over long-term flexibility often discover that migration costs make it prohibitively expensive to switch approaches as their requirements evolve.

Most enterprises building competitive AI applications will find purpose-built AI platforms provide the optimal balance of security, flexibility, innovation speed, and cost efficiency. However, the specific choice should align with your organization's strategic priorities and technical capabilities.

SUCCESS STORY: How Glean cut costs with in-house LLMs

The future of AI belongs to the prepared

The enterprise AI infrastructure landscape is at an inflection point. While the choice between these five approaches may seem tactical, it will fundamentally determine your organization's ability to compete in an AI-driven future.

The trends shaping this landscape are unmistakable: security and data control requirements will intensify as AI applications handle increasingly sensitive business-critical information. Modular architectures will prove essential for adapting to breakthrough innovations that emerge weekly rather than yearly. The cost and complexity of maintaining custom infrastructure will drive more enterprises toward managed solutions that free engineering talent for competitive differentiation.

The organizations that will thrive in the next decade are those building their AI infrastructure with three principles in mind: security-first architecture that keeps sensitive data under complete organizational control, modular flexibility that enables rapid adoption of breakthrough AI techniques, and managed complexity that eliminates infrastructure overhead while accelerating time-to-market for AI applications.

The question for enterprise leaders is not whether AI will transform their industry, it already is. The question is whether their infrastructure choices will enable them to lead that transformation or force them to follow from behind.